Vort Posted August 21, 2012 Report Posted August 21, 2012 But... is serving a mission by going to the 2-year program a covenant/commandment? There's the rub.Unless specifically dismissed from such service, it is indeed the duty of 19- to 25-year-old LDS men to serve a full-time mission. This has been made abundantly clear for the past several decades.
carlimac Posted August 21, 2012 Author Report Posted August 21, 2012 (edited) One more time...The problem with the talk wasn't about whether any random kid should or shouldn't go on a mission, or even if they are obligated to fulfill priesthood duties. Yes! Priesthood holders should fulfill thier duties- all of them to the best of their ability. Yes, all worthy young men should go on a mission- if they are able, if they pass all the tests and jump through all the hoops. My frustration came from knowing personally a few guys who would like to go or to have gone but were denied. It's like telling all young men they should join the army. They all want to but one guy has flat feet and gets rejected and can't join. Several kids I know made a valiant effort to serve a mission but ran into problems at some point and were sent home. SENT home- no choice on their part- due to some mental illness. Now they get to live with that failure all their lives and listen to the inuendos that come from talks like the one the MP gave. This is ALL about me feeling compassion for those who don't fit the mold. How can we reach out to them? I like the suggestion to buddy up. In my case I need to buddy up with the kid's mom who is suffering, too. So back to the direction this thread has taken without my intending it to: I think the church is right in encouraging as many missionaries as possible, but I do believe the approach needs to change. I think there would be better missionary work done if it were optional. I think there would be more young men feeling the genuine love of the gospel and of our Heavenly Father if they weren't hit with such a heavy hand on this. Duty is not always a very good motivator. There is a lot more push back when trying to make kids do something. They aren't as likely to put their whole heart and soul into it. The motivation to serve a mission should come from the heart and from a love for the gospel and for the Lord. I never told my boys they had to serve a mission. They probably heard that a ton in their quorums but never from me or their father. They made the choice on their own and were excited to go. I think better results come from our efforts when we aren't compelled from an external source but when the passion comes from within. As for the senior missionary example, I simply thought it was inappropriate and given for shock value. If anything it illustrated to me how cold hearted and out of touch we can get at times. I don't believe we are all meant to be Abrahams sacrificing our children on the altar. I don't believe the Lord requires that of us. So maybe I won't end up in the highest kingdom. But there you have it. Edited August 21, 2012 by carlimac
Backroads Posted August 21, 2012 Report Posted August 21, 2012 If a person is dismissed from the requirement to serve a mission, there was clearly a reason. I see no need for that individual to feel bad about it (yes, he might feel personal disappointment or a sense of loss for not going, but I doubt it would be the same feeling as true guilt for breaking a commandment). If a person is faced with a difficult choice between serving a mission and fulfilling some other righteous need and chooses the latter, that person should stand be his decision (even if continuing to recommend others still serve missions) and make the best of the situation and find happiness and satisfaction in other righteous actions. If a person just wasn't ready and/or worthy at the time of mission age range, well, that's that. That individual should continue to build his faith and testimony. I believe those cover the standard reasons for not serving a mission and continue to deal with them. Others should not unduly judge these individuals (because it ain't our business). I see no reason to find other excuses for not serving a mission or to sugarcoat anything beyond some basic respectful tact. We've had plenty of GA's tell our young men to serve missions. I'd say that makes it a commandment. If you don't serve, well, do what you must, but don't try to look for reasons for you or anyone else to opt out.
Guest Posted August 21, 2012 Report Posted August 21, 2012 Unless specifically dismissed from such service, it is indeed the duty of 19- to 25-year-old LDS men to serve a full-time mission. This has been made abundantly clear for the past several decades.Duty. I understand the clarity. But I do not agree that a priesthood holder is required to go on a mission without a testimony. I do not agree that a testimony has to be got by age 19-25. And I have yet to hear of anybody specifically getting dismissed from such service when the testimony is not present. All the cases I know of such is that missionaries are sent to MTC to build their testimony. I don't agree that it applies to all cases - not even most cases.And I have seen so many priesthood holders look down on those that have not served missions that I am not entirely confident that young men without testimonies are strong enough to fight the pressure.
Backroads Posted August 21, 2012 Report Posted August 21, 2012 carlimac, I get what you're saying and I like most of it, except for making missionary duty optional. What other parts of the priesthood should we make optional?
carlimac Posted August 21, 2012 Author Report Posted August 21, 2012 If a person is dismissed from the requirement to serve a mission, there was clearly a reason. I see no need for that individual to feel bad about it (yes, he might feel personal disappointment or a sense of loss for not going, but I doubt it would be the same feeling as true guilt for breaking a commandment).The thing is, they DO feel bad even if you see a need for it or not. It can turn into an agonizing and paralyzing guilt, even if dismissal couldn't be helped. The other problem I see with the duty approach is that it turns many members of the church into nosy, judgmental know-it-alls. Whether we voice it or not, we all wonder, "Well, what's wrong with him that he's not going on a mission?" I freely admit I've thought that myself about lots of kids. It automatically brands them as "defective". We steer our daughters away from them, we wonder if they've been having sex or into porn or who knows what? It's NONE of our business!! They shouldn't have to wear a t-shirt that says, "Dont worry. I'm not into porn. I just have a mental illness."
Backroads Posted August 21, 2012 Report Posted August 21, 2012 The thing is, they DO feel bad even if you see a need for it or not. It can turn into an agonizing and paralyzing guilt, even if dismissal couldn't be helped. The other problem I see with the duty approach is that it turns many members of the church into nosy, judgmental know-it-alls. Whether we voice it or not, we all wonder, "Well, what's wrong with him that he's not going on a mission?" I freely admit I've thought that myself about lots of kids. It automatically brands them as "defective". We steer our daughters away from them, we wonder if they've been having sex or into porn or who knows what? It's NONE of our business!! They shouldn't have to wear a t-shirt that says, "Dont worry. I'm not into porn. I just have a mental illness."Yet the only thing I can do is work on not judging others and encourage my fellow members to do the same. I think I have reached a fair level of not judging and others and I continue to work on it. To the person that feels bad and guilty, what more can I do besides support them? Why should I rid myself of the belief that a worthy and honorable priesthood holder will serve a mission if it is at all possible JUST to make one guy feel better about himself? I can love him, I can be there for him, but it's not my job to improve his self-esteem. That's his job.
Vort Posted August 21, 2012 Report Posted August 21, 2012 Duty. I understand the clarity. But I do not agree that a priesthood holder is required to go on a mission without a testimony.A Priesthood holder is required to PREPARE HIMSELF. This includes strengthening his testimony. Of course he is not expected to go on a mission without a testimony; rather, he is expected to gain a testimony and go on a mission.
Backroads Posted August 21, 2012 Report Posted August 21, 2012 I do agree that church culture should change in regards to how we approach the missionary-or-not-a-missionary situation. It is not a fair total assessment of a person, as I think most would agree. But I don't believe playing down the commandment of serving a mission is going to help matters. That is just going the wrong way to temporarily fix a problem. That will not change anyone's hearts when it comes to unrighteous judgment. I just envision it snowballing into changing commandments to suggestions in order to help others feel good. Don't read the scriptures regularly because those that don't read it as often will feel bad. Don't attend church often because those that can't always make it will feel bad. Don't honor your priesthood because those who are struggling with sins will feel bad. How about we work on changing hearts and minds?
MarginOfError Posted August 21, 2012 Report Posted August 21, 2012 carlimac, I get what you're saying and I like most of it, except for making missionary duty optional. What other parts of the priesthood should we make optional?Running the vacuum cleaner at the end of ward activities!
Backroads Posted August 21, 2012 Report Posted August 21, 2012 anatess, while washing my hands in the office bathroom (because you need those details!) I had an epiphany on what you're getting at. So please let me know if I'm right or wrong. You are not against the idea of young men serving missions as long as they are spiritually ready. You are against a culture that sets up a missionary assembly line to send them into the field whether they are spiritually ready or not. You would prefer a non-spiritually prepared young man to work on his spirituality and, if that isn't ready by the time the missionary age spectrum ends, to continue to serve the Lord and his fellow man in other ways.
Vort Posted August 21, 2012 Report Posted August 21, 2012 This is ALL about me feeling compassion for those who don't fit the mold. How can we reach out to them?I agree with this. Could not agree more.I think there would be better missionary work done if it were optional.Missions are already optional. God will force no man to heaven.Or do you mean that the Church should quit teaching young men that part of their Priesthood duty today is to serve a full-time mission? If so, you are wrong in your desire. The Church must proclaim the truths of the restoration and is duty-bound to teach men their Priesthood duties -- one of which is missionary service.I think there would be more young men feeling the genuine love of the gospel and of our Heavenly Father if they weren't hit with such a heavy hand on this.Indeed, it is often easy to second-guess and criticize God and those whom he has called.Duty is not always a very good motivator.The point is not whether it's a good motivator. The point is that it's their duty.If you are married, it's your duty to keep your pants zipped up when with other women. Maybe that's not the best motivator for some men. Doesn't matter. It's still their duty.As for the senior missionary example, I simply thought it was inappropriate and given for shock value. If anything it illustrated to me how cold hearted and out of touch we can get at times.I remember Elder Perry giving an example in a General Conference talk in the late 1980s, where he recounted collecting and straightening out nails that his father pulled from boards in construction projects. After straightening out a whole bucket of nails, he proudly told his father and presented the nails for use. His father replied, "We can't use those nails, son. They are no good. We have to throw them away." He then went on to tell how this lesson taught him the importance of work for its own sake.I was aghast. I could not believe that an APOSTLE was saying that having children do useless work that would just be thrown away was somehow virtuous!Guess what? The example didn't work for me. But it worked for Elder Perry. Now, 25 years or so later, I look back on that story and I feel -- exactly the same way I felt then. But the difference is, I understand that MY way of viewing things is not the ONLY way of viewing things. Elder Perry needed to teach a concept, and he did so in the way that made sense to him. If it doesn't make sense to me, then that's MY problem, not his.I suggest your case is similar.
Backroads Posted August 21, 2012 Report Posted August 21, 2012 Running the vacuum cleaner at the end of ward activities!Whoa. You go too far.
carlimac Posted August 21, 2012 Author Report Posted August 21, 2012 carlimac, I get what you're saying and I like most of it, except for making missionary duty optional. What other parts of the priesthood should we make optional?Well, then the question is, what is the purpose of making something a duty? Why is a full time mission a priesthood duty in the first place? Full time missionary service is a program of the church. It isn't the gospel itself. Taking on the name of Jesus Christ, serving Him, being a good example, seizing opportunities to share the gospel message should be our aim everyday of our lives. Not just for two years or 18 months or whatever. I'm not dissing the full time mission. I served one myself. We got an awesome letter from our son yesterday. He said "going on a mission is abso-flippin-lutely worth it." (It was a letter written in response to some questions from the highschool age boys in our ward.)But I just don't get why it's become such a big deal. I don't see it as a commandment. I don't see it as a "have to or else" kind of thing. I do think it's great for anyone who goes out and is able to teach, learn, grow (up), serve, etc. It has the potential of being a huge blessing. But on the other hand, anyone who has been on a mission knows there are some missionaries who just simply shouldn't be out there.
Finrock Posted August 21, 2012 Report Posted August 21, 2012 So back to the direction this thread has taken without my intending it to: I think the church is right in encouraging as many missionaries as possible, but I do believe the approach needs to change. I think there would be better missionary work done if it were optional. I think there would be more young men feeling the genuine love of the gospel and of our Heavenly Father if they weren't hit with such a heavy hand on this. Duty is not always a very good motivator. There is a lot more push back when trying to make kids do something. They aren't as likely to put their whole heart and soul into it. The motivation to serve a mission should come from the heart and from a love for the gospel and for the Lord. I never told my boys they had to serve a mission. They probably heard that a ton in their quorums but never from me or their father. They made the choice on their own and were excited to go. I think better results come from our efforts when we aren't compelled from an external source but when the passion comes from within. As for the senior missionary example, I simply thought it was inappropriate and given for shock value. If anything it illustrated to me how cold hearted and out of touch we can get at times. I don't believe we are all meant to be Abrahams sacrificing our children on the altar. I don't believe the Lord requires that of us. So maybe I won't end up in the highest kingdom. But there you have it.First, I think your experiences are anecdotal, not representative. I agree that all young men ought to serve a mission based on their own choice. I agree that all young men ought to be motivated by righteous desires to serve a mission. However, those are personal issues. Meaning, the prolem is with the individual if they go for other reasons than good reasons, not with the message. I know of no situation where a missionary was actually (in reality) forced to go on a mission. Essentially your post is saying that the Church is wrong in how it handles missionary work and you are right and that the Church needs to conform to your method of handling missionary work. At the end of the day, I think the real issue here is that you believe that missionary work ought to be presented as something that is good but a strictly optional thing for a young man to do and that is why any suggestion that contradicts that bothers you.Regards,Finrock
carlimac Posted August 21, 2012 Author Report Posted August 21, 2012 I do agree that church culture should change in regards to how we approach the missionary-or-not-a-missionary situation. It is not a fair total assessment of a person, as I think most would agree. But I don't believe playing down the commandment of serving a mission is going to help matters. That is just going the wrong way to temporarily fix a problem. That will not change anyone's hearts when it comes to unrighteous judgment. I just envision it snowballing into changing commandments to suggestions in order to help others feel good. Don't read the scriptures regularly because those that don't read it as often will feel bad. Don't attend church often because those that can't always make it will feel bad. Don't honor your priesthood because those who are struggling with sins will feel bad.How about we work on changing hearts and minds?That's ridiculous and not what I'm suggesting at all.
Backroads Posted August 21, 2012 Report Posted August 21, 2012 But I just don't get why it's become such a big deal. I don't see it as a commandment. I don't see it as a "have to or else" kind of thing. I do think it's great for anyone who goes out and is able to teach, learn, grow (up), serve, etc. It has the potential of being a huge blessing. But on the other hand, anyone who has been on a mission knows there are some missionaries who just simply shouldn't be out there.So let's focus on that raised bar, maybe raise it again, if need be. As others have pointed out, a missionary who shouldn't be out there wasn't ready to serve a mission. For whatever reason, he wasn't prepared. I agree, he probably shouldn't have gone.Does not change the fact he was commanded to prepare to and serve a mission. Notice the "and"? It's a single commandment. There is no commandment (as far as I know) to serve a mission whether you are ready or not. Young men who shouldn't be out there missed the part about preparing to serve. We can do all we can to get the best missionaries out there and yes, not send out young men who shouldn't be out there, without removing the priesthood duty of preparing-and-serving.
carlimac Posted August 21, 2012 Author Report Posted August 21, 2012 Running the vacuum cleaner at the end of ward activities!Give that duty to the Primary kids. They'd love it!
Backroads Posted August 21, 2012 Report Posted August 21, 2012 That's ridiculous and not what I'm suggesting at all.Are you sure? It seems one of your arguments for making missions optional is so those who didn't serve won't be racked with guilt and sadness.
Backroads Posted August 21, 2012 Report Posted August 21, 2012 Well, then the question is, what is the purpose of making something a duty? Why is a full time mission a priesthood duty in the first place?The purpose of making something a duty is because that something NEEDS to be done. The gospel needs to be preaached. A full-time mission is a priesthood duty because our leaders said so and that's good enough for me. I also feel Vort made many excellent points on it. Full time missionary service is a program of the church. It isn't the gospel itself.No one ever said it was the gospel, just part of priesthood duty.Taking on the name of Jesus Christ, serving Him, being a good example, seizing opportunities to share the gospel message should be our aim everyday of our lives. Not just for two years or 18 months or whatever. Yes, very true and well said. But the fact remains is our leaders told young men to prepare-and-serve a mission.
Vort Posted August 21, 2012 Report Posted August 21, 2012 That's ridiculous and not what I'm suggesting at all.I'm pretty sure Backroads' point was to demonstrate that the reasoning is indeed ridiculous. I don't think her examples are far-fetched; if you start by refusing to proclaim missionary service as a Priesthood duty -- which it is -- what's to keep you from proclaiming all sorts of other duties as non-duties?
Vort Posted August 21, 2012 Report Posted August 21, 2012 Well, then the question is, what is the purpose of making something a duty?That is equivalent to asking: What is the purpose of making something a commandment? You "make" something a commandment so your children understand that they are commanded to do it. I expect God "makes" thing commandments for the same reason. Thus, I expect God "makes" missionary work a duty of the Priesthood so that Priesthood holders will understand that it is a duty.Why is a full time mission a priesthood duty in the first place?We could share all sorts of reasons, many or even most of which might be true and valid. But this kind of question is best taken before the Lord and answered by him. Why he has set up the oath and covenant of the Priesthood as he has seen fit to do is a question best answered by him who set the oath and covenant up in the first place.
carlimac Posted August 21, 2012 Author Report Posted August 21, 2012 Are you sure? It seems one of your arguments for making missions optional is so those who didn't serve won't be racked with guilt and sadness.No that's not one of my reasons. That would be a positive by-product. I think making missions optinal would make for better missionaries and better missionary work.
Backroads Posted August 21, 2012 Report Posted August 21, 2012 No that's not one of my reasons. That would be a positive by-product. I think making missions optinal would make for better missionaries and better missionary work.But how many young men would truly make missionary work a priority? Yeah, you might get the stalwart few, but how effective would that handful be in preaching the gospel to the world? I really do believe that taking a mission out of the list of priesthood duties would result in a lot less missionaries. How would you prevent that?
Misshalfway Posted August 21, 2012 Report Posted August 21, 2012 No that's not one of my reasons. That would be a positive by-product. I think making missions optinal would make for better missionaries and better missionary work.As far as I can tell, it is optional and always has been optional.
Recommended Posts