Premissionary stuck in a situation


premissionary
 Share

Recommended Posts

This is ridiculous. Where did I say anything in my post about this being connected with church doctrine or policy?

I got the idea from these posts:

You hit the nail on the head saintish! And then the church wonders why so many people end up going inactive after their missions.

If you think that your "choice" of serving a mission with all of its persuasions, guilt-trips, bribes, (insert family member(s) name) pressure, and coersions is the same as you desiring who you want to have as your best friend, lover, and eternal partner, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'll be more than glad to sell you. You can even name the price.

The "pressure" that has been continually mentioned in this thread originates from the Church's teaching that missionary service is a Priesthood duty. You put the word "choice" in quotation marks, presumably to call into question whether it is actually a choice. This is absurd. Of course it is a choice. Your clear implication is that, by teaching the doctrinal fact that full-time missionary service is a duty, the Church is somehow guilty of removing a person's choice, or perhaps of helping parents to remove that choice by their incessant pressuring.

This is pure nonsense. If parents put inappropriate pressure on their sons to serve, that does not mean the Church's teachings or efforts are therefore wrong. And I doubt that you (or I) are in a position to judge whether that parent's efforts really are inappropriate.

This is about parent and leaders over-expectations

Which "over-expectations" are those? The "over-expectations" that teach the simple truth that full-time missionary service is a Priesthood obligation?

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.

Why ought I to believe some random discontented internet person who champions the idea that young men wait until their early to mid-20s to serve a mission instead of trust that the Lord's anointed leaders know what they are doing when they urge 19-year-olds to serve? Can you provide me any possible inducement to believe and trust you over them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 83
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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

Thank you Vort for stating my opinion is irrelevant. I am entitled to my opinion, just because I feel the church puts too much pressure on young men to serve does not make me any less of a member than anyone else. I know I personally will not put any pressure on my children to serve. If they want to that would be great. If they do not want to, then I will hope that they get their education instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am entitled to my opinion

Of course you are entitled to your opinion. You are also entitled to hold the opinion that the moon is made of green cheese. That opinion is wrong, too, but you are entitled to it.

just because I feel the church puts too much pressure on young men to serve does not make me any less of a member than anyone else.

Nor did I suggest that it made you so. I simply remarked that your opinion does not change the facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest saintish

@Vort: while it is technically true that it is a choice to serve, just as it is a choice not to murder or commit adultery, on the same token it is not a choice if a young man wants to Follow the commands of G_d and not disappoint leaders and parents.

While I won’t disagree that missionary work is a commandment, I don’t think anyone can show me where it says a Man must serve a 2 year mission before the age of 25 or he has committed a sin. In fact I have heard that those who didn’t get a chance to serve a regular may fulfill the call to serve by serving as a senior missionary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t think anyone can show me where it says a Man must serve a 2 year mission before the age of 25 or he has committed a sin. In fact I have heard that those who didn’t get a chance to serve a regular may fulfill the call to serve by serving as a senior missionary.

If this is the case, then there are a lot of well respected "sinners" in the church, such as Danny Ainge, Marc Wilson, LaVell Edwards, Gifford Neilsen, Donny Osmond, and Steve Young. There status in the church was never affected because they chose not to serve a mission. President Monson himself never seved a mission and he is the head of this church! While I agree that if you have the desire and worthiness to serve a mission, by all means go. But if you're going simply because everybody else wants you to and not for yourself, then you're going for all the wrong reasons and will end up doing more harm to the mission (and possibly to yourself) than good.

Edited by Carl62
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest saintish

President Monson himself never seved a mission and he is the head of this church!

In all fairness Pres. Monson Technically did serve a mission as a mission president. But, certiainly he did not do the standard single mission at 19 that most are expected to. I think it is funny that steve young actually wanted to go on a mission but was talked out of it by the church.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Vort: while it is technically true that it is a choice to serve, just as it is a choice not to murder or commit adultery, on the same token it is not a choice if a young man wants to Follow the commands of G_d and not disappoint leaders and parents.

You keep saying this, but you are mistaken. It IS a choice, even if a young man wants to follow God's commandments and even if he wants not to disappoint leaders and parents.

It's still a choice. He is still choosing. His choice is his.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know I personally will not put any pressure on my children to serve. If they want to that would be great. If they do not want to, then I will hope that they get their education instead.

Please define 'any pressure' because I think we are taking pass each other. As a parent I feel it is my responsibility to make sure my kids understands what the Lord expects of them. This is includes but not limited to Faith, Repentance, Baptism, Gift of the Holy Ghost, Priesthood, Tithing, Word Of Wisdom, Chasity, Service, Temple Work, and Missionary work both general and full time. If I don't teach them then they will learn from more worldly sources and then I will have failed my primary duty toward them. (Talk about pressure) But the moment I tell my kids what it right and expected of them there is pressure. It is unavoidable and inevitable. The only way to not put 'any' pressure on your kids is to not have any standards at all.

Now is there a problem if we don't have the kind of relationship with our kids where they can come to us with their questions, concerns, and doubts. If they don't think they will be understood or listened to then we have failed in an entirely different way and it needs to be corrected. If when we see them wavering all we do is pound on them to 'do the Right thing' then I consider it undue pressure and I acknowledge it can happen. But lowering the standard is not the way to correct it. You correct it by fixing the relationship so you listen and help them through it (Which is by far a harder thing to do)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a son (11 and a half) who will be getting the priesthood soon (yay!). Missions and his responsibilities have been on my mind a lot, so I've been following this thread with interest, even though it's veered quite a ways from the OP's question :)

It seems there is a disconnect between righteous expectations and undue pressure. As parents, we should expect our boys to serve a full-time mission, as we have been commanded. I have raised my son with that expectation, just like I expect him to say his prayers and attend church.

What I don't like to see are parents who try to force their children to go on missions. They could be doing it for the "right" reasons (it's an important spiritual step, their sons are spreading the gospel) but I think more often, deep down, they are doing it out of pride. "What will the ward members think of him if he doesn't go? What will they think of me as a parent?" And those feelings are passed onto the child, who either rebels and falls away or gives in, barely serves, and then falls away.

This is not the church's fault. The church is not there to raise our children, and they are not responsible for a) making allowances for boys who don't want to go and feel pressured, or b) helping force them to go.

Will I be disappointed if my son, after all he is taught, chooses not to go? Of course. I'd be disappointed if he stopped attending church or praying, too. But at some point, children need to stop relying on their parents' testimonies and find their own. We need to stop being "helicopter parents," always hovering around our children and making their choices for them. That's Satan's plan, not Christ's.

Do your best to raise your child, make clear your (and God's) expectations, and respect their right to choose. Stop blaming the church or church members or yourself if they make the wrong choice. That's how they learn and grow; I would be doing my son a huge disservice if I took that away from him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest saintish

b) helping force them to go.

I disagree I think the church is at least indirectly responsible by not addressing the issue of parents forcing children to go out of pride and by not reaching out to those who decide not to serve.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree I think the church is at least indirectly responsible by not addressing the issue of parents forcing children to go out of pride and by not reaching out to those who decide not to serve.

That's not the church. That's individual, fallible bishops. (Being a bishop has got to be the hardest job in the church, because every mistake you make is blamed on the church, and every good thing you do is overlooked as part of your job.)

The church has addressed the issue of how we should righteously encourage our sons to serve missions numerous times.

Turning Fear into Faith - Ensign Oct. 1977 (1977)

Chicken Coop or Church? Influencing Our Children to Righteousness - Ensign Aug. 1980 (1980)

The Value of Preparation - Ensign Nov. 1989 (1989)

Money or Mission? - Ensign Oct. 2005 (2005)

Young Men General President's Message (2008)

I see nothing wrong with keeping an eye open for potential problems among church members and trying to address them. People (even church leaders) make mistakes. However, we also need to do our due diligence when examining the problem. Odds are good that the church leadership has already recognized and addressed it. It's our responsibility to seek out those answers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this thread has sofened me up a bit. I like this story from the Chicken coop story, above:

I know a seminary teacher who agreed at mid-term to allow a student who had been expelled from a high school class to enter his seminary class. On the first day the new student began attending, he walked in ten minutes late. He sat at the back, put his feet on an empty chair in front of him, and sneered at the teacher. All the other students had turned to watch the late arriver enter. Now that he was seated, all looked to see the teacher’s reaction. The teacher wanted to establish proper control from the beginning. He knew the time for force had come. He said, “You sit here in this chair on the front row.”

The student stared at the teacher but didn’t move.

The teacher, pointing at the chair but staring sternly at the student, spoke again, “Did you hear me? I want you here in front.”

Silence filled the room as all in the class saw the tension building up in the teacher.

Seconds passed and the student didn’t move.

“Get up here,” the teacher said with anger in his voice.

Still the student held his ground. In this time of crisis, the thought flashed into the teacher’s mind: “If I do not force him to come up, I will appear weak in the eyes of the other students, and I will lose face with them.”

The students continued to watch the teacher for his response to the situation. And then from somewhere the thought came to the teacher: “I am not here to use brute force or to save my face. I am here to save his.”

The teacher’s expression softened. A twinkle came into his eyes, followed by a smile. With this wonderful unspoken message came a relief from the cold war tension.

He spoke again, “All right, you stay there. But if at anytime in the future you ever want to sit up here, I’ll save this chair especially for you.”

Three weeks later the teacher hurried into the room just as the bell rang. As he began to call the roll, he looked out at the class and saw, not a foot away, the student grinning at him.

Many of us, especially parents, would have insisted that the young man move the first day. We make crises out of little things—as if there were no tomorrow. After all, we are the boss. That is our God-given right! (Or is it our Satan-influenced inclination?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest saintish

That's not the church. That's individual, fallible bishops. (Being a bishop has got to be the hardest job in the church, because every mistake you make is blamed on the church, and every good thing you do is overlooked as part of your job.)

The church has addressed the issue of how we should righteously encourage our sons to serve missions numerous times.

Turning Fear into Faith - Ensign Oct. 1977 (1977)

Chicken Coop or Church? Influencing Our Children to Righteousness - Ensign Aug. 1980 (1980)

The Value of Preparation - Ensign Nov. 1989 (1989)

Money or Mission? - Ensign Oct. 2005 (2005)

Young Men General President's Message (2008)

I see nothing wrong with keeping an eye open for potential problems among church members and trying to address them. People (even church leaders) make mistakes. However, we also need to do our due diligence when examining the problem. Odds are good that the church leadership has already recognized and addressed it. It's our responsibility to seek out those answers.

None of those articles address Parents forcing their children to go on missions out of pride. Not a one. I maintain that the church has not addressed this issue. The only message the church has given is “go on a mission” it doesn’t address those who have legitimate reasons for not going or those who haven’t gone and are still worthy members. Instead it indirectly marginalizes those who for whatever reason don’t go with anecdotal accounts of people who find ways to go. Don’t get me wrong, its great when people find ways to serve, etc. But I think there is a great want for support of those who don’t.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of those articles address Parents forcing their children to go on missions out of pride. Not a one. I maintain that the church has not addressed this issue. The only message the church has given is “go on a mission” it doesn’t address those who have legitimate reasons for not going or those who haven’t gone and are still worthy members. Instead it indirectly marginalizes those who for whatever reason don’t go with anecdotal accounts of people who find ways to go. Don’t get me wrong, its great when people find ways to serve, etc. But I think there is a great want for support of those who don’t.

You're right. Instead of holding up a bad example like pride and saying "don't do this!" the articles present good examples that we can follow. Using a positive example instead of a negative one doesn't mean the issue hasn't been addressed. It's fairly easy to read those examples, reverse them in our minds, and see the kind of prideful and unfair force we're both opposed to.

As for lack of support, again, you're right. We as a church don't support the choice not to go on mission. That's like saying, "the church doesn't have any support material for people who choose to marry outside the temple." It is not the church's responsibility to rationalize our bad decisions and make us feel better about them.

The church has assured young men who are physically unable (through illness or handicap) to go on a mission that they will still garner blessings through service in other ways. In all other circumstances, it is young men's bad choices that have prevented them from going on a mission. Either they have committed a severe sin, or they have not developed their own testimony enough to follow this commandment. Not going on a mission is of itself not a sin, but it indicates the need for the young man, at the very least, to look at his priorities. If God is not first in his life, he needs to fix that.

I maintain that parents and church members should allow those young men to make their own choices, because as you said earlier, we don't want missionaries who aren't close to Heavenly Father. The Holy Ghost converts people, not the missionary, and if the missionary is not worthy of the Holy Ghost he shouldn't be there. However, that doesn't mean we need to justify or support his bad choices, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest saintish

You're right. Instead of holding up a bad example like pride and saying "don't do this!" the articles present good examples that we can follow. Using a positive example instead of a negative one doesn't mean the issue hasn't been addressed. It's fairly easy to read those examples, reverse them in our minds, and see the kind of prideful and unfair force we're both opposed to.

Then why does the church ‘hold up’ other bad examples like divorce, alcohol and drug abuse. Beside, those who truly are prideful won’t do that in their mind. They will read this and say, “see there is no reason not to go on a mission, what is wrong with you that you haven’t gone?”

As for lack of support, again, you're right. We as a church don't support the choice not to go on mission. That's like saying, "the church doesn't have any support material for people who choose to marry outside the temple."

But the Church DOES support members who marry non members and outside of the temple, I don’t know how many articles I have read about how home teachers and other priesthood leaders have stepped in when there is no priesthood holder in a home.

It is not the church's responsibility to rationalize our bad decisions and make us feel better about them.

Whoa whoa whoa, who is saying anything about rationalizing bad decisions? All I’m saying is it would be nice if there was an article or statement that said “hey if your kid doesn’t go on a mission, don’t give him the third degree or threaten to kick him out of the house. That’s the kind of stuff they do on polygamous compounds.”

In all other circumstances, it is young men's bad choices that have prevented them from going on a mission. Either they have committed a severe sin, or they have not developed their own testimony enough to follow this commandment.

And you feel comfortable boxing all circumstances into those two categories? I don’t.

However, that doesn't mean we need to justify or support his bad choices, either.

Don’t justify or support the choice, support the person! Don’t treat them like a second class citizen or say things like ‘teach your daughters to only marry return missionaries’ or if you don’t go on a mission you can’t receive your endowments until you’re too old to go or get married. That’s what needs to be addressed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry saintish, I wish I could help you with your questions, but I suspect you don't really want help.

Your comments are littered with criticisms and condemnations of the church and church leaders. You blame the church for not forcing parents and other church members to abandon their pride. You have convinced yourself that the church (not individual fallible members) is responsible for unrighteous pressure on young men to go on missions. You persist in dismissing all evidence to the contrary because it doesn't fit your world view. Even real-world examples, like the soon-to-be missionary parents who have talked with you on this board and don't hold these views, aren't good enough.

An online debate--a notorious forum for promoting divisiveness and contention, where the Spirit cannot exist--is no place to convince you of anything. Ask yourself, is pride clouding your own vision? Are you digging in your heels because you don't want to be wrong? I know I am, and it's making it hard for me to acknowledge any valid points you've made. Someone on the Internet is wrong! :P I need to stop now.

At some point, you have to stop expecting others to answer your questions and find those answers yourself. Read the scriptures and search the archives. Pray. Fast. Pray some more. And remember, the church is more than the sum of its members. If it's true (and it is) and you put in the effort, you will find the answers you seek. Good luck!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest saintish

Sorry saintish, I wish I could help you with your questions, but I suspect you don't really want help.

I didn’t know I had a question. I am just stating my opinion on the matter.

Your comments are littered with criticisms and condemnations of the church and church leaders.

I don’t know that I have condemned the church or criticized any leader, all of my comments have been a general ‘the church could do better in this area’

You blame the church for not forcing parents and other church members to abandon their pride.

No, I’m not blaming the church for not forcing people to abandon their pride. All I am saying is that it could be addressed more.

You have convinced yourself that the church (not individual fallible members) is responsible for unrighteous pressure on young men to go on missions.

In the sense that the church hasn’t addressed the issue it is partly responsible.

You persist in dismissing all evidence to the contrary because it doesn't fit your world view. Even real-world examples, like the soon-to-be missionary parents who have talked with you on this board and don't hold these views, aren't good enough.

I’m not dismissing anything but what you have posted, the ensign articles, your personal story, etc. doesn’t address the issue. Yes young men should go on missions, yes there are very few legitimate reasons not to go. That is all fine and good I think the point that myself and Carl62 are trying to make is that those who don’t go, for whatever reason shouldn’t be treated like second class citizens. Look at how Jesus treated the Prostitute. Was he silent? Did he say there is no excuse to do that? Or did he say let him without sin cast the first stone?

At some point, you have to stop expecting others to answer your questions and find those answers yourself. Read the scriptures and search the archives. Pray. Fast. Pray some more. And remember, the church is more than the sum of its members. If it's true (and it is) and you put in the effort, you will find the answers you seek. Good luck!

I’m not expecting anyone to answer my question for me; I am expressing the answer I have found. That is how we learn, we make theories and come to conclusion and then test them against others theories and conclusions. We just need to be open to being wrong or we won’t learn anything. We have to accept that others have had different experiences than our own. It might not be as easy for one to see what another see around the corner.

All that being said, debate and this type of discussion is not for everyone so I understand your frustration and remember if you right your right nothing I say will change that so there is no need to debate but if you are willing to entertain the possibility of being wrong, challenge what I have said or adopt it for yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m not dismissing anything but what you have posted, the ensign articles, your personal story, etc. doesn’t address the issue. Yes young men should go on missions, yes there are very few legitimate reasons not to go. That is all fine and good I think the point that myself and Carl62 are trying to make is that those who don’t go, for whatever reason shouldn’t be treated like second class citizens. Look at how Jesus treated the Prostitute. Was he silent? Did he say there is no excuse to do that? Or did he say let him without sin cast the first stone?

Wait wait wait... You are seriously putting yourself in the role of Christ. And the Prophet of the Church and GAs in the role of the corrupt leaders of the time who allowed it to happen...

And you can't understand why we think you might have a bit of pride going on?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest saintish

Wait wait wait... You are seriously putting yourself in the role of Christ. And the Prophet of the Church and GAs in the role of the corrupt leaders of the time who allowed it to happen...

And you can't understand why we think you might have a bit of pride going on?

WHAT? I’m not sure how you came to that conclusion. If anything I am saying that the people who treat those who don’t go on missions like second class citizens should be reminded of this and the church should be the one doing the reminding. My point was that if Jesus says let him without sin cast the first stone about an adulterer then how much more so does it apply to a young man who for whatever reason didn’t go on a mission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WHAT? I’m not sure how you came to that conclusion. If anything I am saying that the people who treat those who don’t go on missions like second class citizens should be reminded of this and the church should be the one doing the reminding. My point was that if Jesus says let him without sin cast the first stone about an adulterer then how much more so does it apply to a young man who for whatever reason didn’t go on a mission.

I suspect that much of the discomfort many feel on reading your posts is that you insist on telling what the Church "should" do or how its leaders "should" act. As you have no authority to direct the affairs in the Church, this strikes many as a faithless exercise in ark-steadying. Criticizing the actions of individual Church members may be appropriate, but criticizing the leadership efforts of the Church and the policies it adopts (and does not adopt) is not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WHAT? I’m not sure how you came to that conclusion. If anything I am saying that the people who treat those who don’t go on missions like second class citizens should be reminded of this and the church should be the one doing the reminding. My point was that if Jesus says let him without sin cast the first stone about an adulterer then how much more so does it apply to a young man who for whatever reason didn’t go on a mission.

Because with every claim that you make that the Church should 'do something' you are casting a stone at leadership of the church. You are the one that made the link to the story of the adulteress. If you did not mean to imply that there is a leadership fault somewhere then back down on the demand that they fix it to your liking

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may have no authority but i know whats right and wrong. Am i not allowed to voice my opinion?

This is the crux of the matter. When is it appropriate to voice our opinions?

If we think our bishop is doing a crappy job, is it appropriate for us to get up in testimony meeting and announce our opinion? Clearly not. How about in gospel doctrine class? Again, clearly not. Well, then, is it appropriate to carp about his failure at a ward party? How about at a gathering of ward friends at a non-Church-sponsored party? How about just between close friends at lunch? How about to spouse and family only?

The whole discussion seems to miss the point: We should not be carping about our bishop at all. To do so is to fail to sustain him in his calling, which we are under covenant to do. If we see a true failing in our bishop or his actions that must be addressed, the appropriate person to talk to is the stake president. Other than that, the only time we are justified in complaining about the bishop is when he is threatening clear and present harm to someone -- and even then, we need to be sure.

What is true for our local leaders is true for our general authorities, as well. We are under covenant to sustain them. Complaining about their efforts and decisions is not sustaining them; rather, it shows a rebellious spirit that seeks to establish its own will above that of those who are called to lead. (It also shows massive ignorance about the realities of leading a huge organization and motivating people to do the right thing.)

Do you have the right to your opinion? Of course. Do you have the right to state your opinion? Legally, of course you do. But is that a course of action befitting a Saint? You also have the right to smoke, but that doesn't make it a worthy activity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share