Troubled over a few comments made in stake conf. today.

[carlimac]

We had a newly returned mission president and his wife speak. Over-all they were excellent talks. Inspiring and encouraging. But at one point the president said something to the effect of "all young men need to go on a mission. There is no excuse not to go." Well in that congregation I know of one young man who went but came home from the MTC due to anxiety issues. He suffers extreme guilt over it. And another young man in the stake who is 20 just can't get himself to go. I don't know why. I don't think it's due to righteousness issues. He is a good kid, serves as EQ president in a singles ward but just feels too much pressure about the mission. His parents have told him they support whatever decision he makes and it's nobody elses business if he goes or not. It's between himself and the Lord. I know mission presidents have a perspective about it all that I don't have, but you'd think they would have some sensitivity, too, for the ones who really do have a good enough reason not to go. I'm wondering how else could he have worded his enthusiasm for full time missions without offending the lost or crippled sheep?

Then he gave an example of a senior missionary couple who had just left the MTC and were driving to their mission when they got a call that their son's wife was in the hospital and may not survive. Indeed she died two days later. They made the choice to go straight to their mission in the northern part of the country rather than to California to the funeral. They had the choice as many senior missionaries do. They were driving themselves and had permission to do whatever they needed to do. Well, this mission president said they chose to serve the Lord rather that going to the funeral and they had no regrets.

I think it was an unfortunate example to give. I'm positive there are some (myself included) who would have made a different choice. Does that mean I'm not as faithful? Yes it was an example of their dedication, but unfair to hold it up as the standard. I have a hard time believing the Lord would condemn them for going to support their son at such a critical time, especially since it was at the beginning of their mission. It's' my understanding that the choice is ultimately up to the missionary and that they are honorably excused if needed.

Sometimes I get frustrated with the black and white portrayals of situations that don't have just one right answer.

[C_T_R]

I'm wondering how else could he have worded his enthusiasm for full time missions without offending the lost or crippled sheep?

How sad that this is still being said from the pulpit. It is wrong. Absolutely wrong. For the "lost," for the "crippled," or for members who have a million different reasons why that would not be good for them. God is the ONLY one whose feelings about whether a mission is right for someone or not matters.. and that is between the person and God alone. Few things get me fired up like does this statement.

How else could he have worded it? Missions are wonderful experiences that create special opportunities for an individual and couples to grow. Whether you serve one as a young elder, later in your life with your spouse, or in the life to come, you have much to look forward to. Meanwhile, every one of you are missionaries by bearing the name of Jesus Christ. Saint Francis of Assisi said, “Preach the gospel at all times and if necessary, use words."

Then he gave an example of a senior missionary couple who had just left the MTC and were driving to their mission when they got a call that their son's wife was in the hospital and may not survive. Indeed she died two days later. They made the choice to go straight to their mission in the northern part of the country rather than to California to the funeral. They had the choice as many senior missionaries do. They were driving themselves and had permission to do whatever they needed to do. Well, this mission president said they chose to serve the Lord rather that going to the funeral and they had no regrets.

I think it was an unfortunate example to give. I'm positive there are some (myself included) who would have made a different choice. Does that mean I'm not as faithful? Yes it was an example of their dedication, but unfair to hold it up as the standard. I have a hard time believing the Lord would condemn them for going to support their son at such a critical time, especially since it was at the beginning of their mission. It's' my understanding that the choice is ultimately up to the missionary and that they are honorably excused if needed.

I agree that this was an unfortunate example to give. I would have made a different choice. Does that mean you or I are not as faithful? NO. Unfair to hold it up as the standard? YES. For this couple, perhaps they prayed about it and found that for one reason or another they should stay where they were. But no, this is not an example of stronger faith, in my opinion, without the specifics. There would be nothing wrong with going. Without knowing the specifics I wonder if it was wrong of these parents NOT to go. *siiiighhh*

Sometimes I get frustrated with the black and white portrayals of situations that don't have just one right answer.

Amen. Edited August 19, 2012 by C_T_R

[prisonchaplain]

Several years ago I attended a special religious service at a large church in Springfield, Missouri. I and several of my classmates were there--and there had to be at least three dozen or so from our school in attendance. The speaker was probably in his 60s, and was of a generation that was skeptical of higher education--especially at the graduate level. So, he comments, "Down the road is the Assemblies of God Theological Seminary. They seem to know about God, but I wonder if they really know God."

There are a few polite snickers, mostly from older members. After the message a few of my friends said they had hoped that the pastor would come to the pulpit and say something like, "You know, we have several seminary students in our church, and I am pleased with their passion for God." He offered no such gentle correction.

We grumbled a bit, but got over it. God can annoint flawed vessels, with uneven personalities, and certain prejudices. Hopefully those young people you mentioned could find some blessing in what was said, and not allow an unqualified opinion and testimony get in the way.

Edited August 19, 2012 by prisonchaplain

[NeuroTypical]

"all young men need to go on a mission. There is no excuse not to go."

Yeah, my preferred way for dealing with such comments, is by buddying up to anyone hurt by them. I did not go on a mission, choosing instead to be a primary caregiver for my chronically ill mother. It is a choice I regret, but I can't really speak against anyone making a similar choice. Such choices make us who we are - but if I end up not becoming the person some random mission president believes I should be, well, I suppose that's something he and I will just have to live with. I'm doing ok with it, I hope he is too. Edited August 19, 2012 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[Iggy]

I heard somewhere that Pres Monson did not go on a mission.

[pam]

I heard somewhere that Pres Monson did not go on a mission.

That is correct. He did not serve a mission.

[Wingnut]

I heard somewhere that Pres Monson did not go on a mission.

It also was not a standard expectation at the time he was eligible, nor was it prior to 1975(ish).

[pam]

It also was not a standard expectation at the time he was eligible, nor was it prior to 1975(ish).

It was also because it was WWII and he had enlisted in the Navy.

[Vort]

We had a newly returned mission president and his wife speak. Over-all they were excellent talks. Inspiring and encouraging. But at one point the president said something to the effect of "all young men need to go on a mission. There is no excuse not to go." Well in that congregation I know of one young man who went but came home from the MTC due to anxiety issues. He suffers extreme guilt over it. And another young man in the stake who is 20 just can't get himself to go. I don't know why. I don't think it's due to righteousness issues. He is a good kid, serves as EQ president in a singles ward but just feels too much pressure about the mission. His parents have told him they support whatever decision he makes and it's nobody elses business if he goes or not. It's between himself and the Lord. I know mission presidents have a perspective about it all that I don't have, but you'd think they would have some sensitivity, too, for the ones who really do have a good enough reason not to go. I'm wondering how else could he have worded his enthusiasm for full time missions without offending the lost or crippled sheep?

Then he gave an example of a senior missionary couple who had just left the MTC and were driving to their mission when they got a call that their son's wife was in the hospital and may not survive. Indeed she died two days later. They made the choice to go straight to their mission in the northern part of the country rather than to California to the funeral. They had the choice as many senior missionaries do. They were driving themselves and had permission to do whatever they needed to do. Well, this mission president said they chose to serve the Lord rather that going to the funeral and they had no regrets.

I think it was an unfortunate example to give. I'm positive there are some (myself included) who would have made a different choice. Does that mean I'm not as faithful? Yes it was an example of their dedication, but unfair to hold it up as the standard. I have a hard time believing the Lord would condemn them for going to support their son at such a critical time, especially since it was at the beginning of their mission. It's' my understanding that the choice is ultimately up to the missionary and that they are honorably excused if needed.

Sometimes I get frustrated with the black and white portrayals of situations that don't have just one right answer.

I understand your frustration. But hyperbole is a common teaching technique, both in the Church and elsewhere. If it is true that things are not always black and white, it is equally true (or moreso) that people use the shades-of-gray excuse to justify all sorts of things they should not.

The returning mission president's choice of words may have been unfortunate or even regrettable, but the point he was getting at was true. I am quite sure that all who were listening with the Spirit understood the intent of his comments and were able to look past the suboptimal wording.

[carlimac]

I understand your frustration. But hyperbole is a common teaching technique, both in the Church and elsewhere. If it is true that things are not always black and white, it is equally true (or moreso) that people use the shades-of-gray excuse to justify all sorts of things they should not.

The returning mission president's choice of words may have been unfortunate or even regrettable, but the point he was getting at was true. I am quite sure that all who were listening with the Spirit understood the intent of his comments and were able to look past the suboptimal wording.

Not so sure about that Vort. I was listening intently and felt the spirit until I heard his comments about "no excuses". My heart sank and I felt that I was hearing something that was not true. The example of the senior couple wasn't simple hyperbole. It was given to illustrate a point- that of the sacrifice the couples have to make to serve a mission. But he had already made that point when he described that they had gained 5 grandchildren over the 3 years they had been gone and his wife couldn't be there for those births. He also had pointed out that there is never a perfect or easy time for seniors to go. But I think the couple making a conscious choice to go to their mission rather than to go comfort their son in his time of need was over the top and unnecessary.

[Misshalfway]

I understand your frustration. But hyperbole is a common teaching technique, both in the Church and elsewhere. If it is true that things are not always black and white, it is equally true (or moreso) that people use the shades-of-gray excuse to justify all sorts of things they should not.

The returning mission president's choice of words may have been unfortunate or even regrettable, but the point he was getting at was true. I am quite sure that all who were listening with the Spirit understood the intent of his comments and were able to look past the suboptimal wording.

There was a time when I may have felt and said the very same thing. But I see things differently now. I don't think we should afford such indulgences into perfectionistic regurgitations. I know its our culture. And I know we need so much patience and loving tolerance with each other as we each attempt to teach each other the gospel. And thank goodness there is a Spirit to help us sort through it all.

But I guess what I see in the church is a pandemic of perfectionism. It's ruining our peace and causing lots of unnecessary sufferings. I think that this is one area that Satan is laughing because he's got us by the throat as he uses our guilt and fear against us. He hides in the perfectionism that mascarades as perfect. And he succeeds in getting people to miss the mark.

I think we can and should do better in how we talk about obedience and in how we teach it.

Try this quote on for size. It's a CS Lewis quote. I think it might be appropriate here.

“I think all Christians would agree with me if I said that though Christianity seems at first to be all about morality, all about duties and rules and guilt and virtue, yet it leads you on, out of all that, into something beyond. One has a glimpse of a country where they do not talk of those things, except perhaps as a joke. Everyone there is filled full with what we should call goodness as a mirror is filled with light. But they do not call it goodness. They do not call it anything. They are not thinking of it. They are too busy looking at the source from which it comes. But this is near the stage where the road passes over the rim of our world. No one's eyes can see very far beyond that: lots of people's eyes can see further than mine.”

― C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

[carlimac]

There was a time when I may have felt and said the very same thing. But I see things differently now. I don't think we should afford such indulgences into perfectionistic regurgitations. I know its our culture. And I know we need so much patience and loving tolerance with each other as we each attempt to teach each other the gospel. And thank goodness there is a Spirit to help us sort through it all.

But I guess what I see in the church is a pandemic of perfectionism. It's ruining our peace and causing lots of unnecessary sufferings. I think that this is one area that Satan is laughing because he's got us by the throat as he uses our guilt and fear against us. He hides in the perfectionism that mascarades as perfect. And he succeeds in getting people to miss the mark.

I think we can and should do better in how we talk about obedience and in how we teach it.

Try this quote on for size. It's a CS Lewis quote. I think it might be appropriate here.

“I think all Christians would agree with me if I said that though Christianity seems at first to be all about morality, all about duties and rules and guilt and virtue, yet it leads you on, out of all that, into something beyond. One has a glimpse of a country where they do not talk of those things, except perhaps as a joke. Everyone there is filled full with what we should call goodness as a mirror is filled with light. But they do not call it goodness. They do not call it anything. They are not thinking of it. They are too busy looking at the source from which it comes. But this is near the stage where the road passes over the rim of our world. No one's eyes can see very far beyond that: lots of people's eyes can see further than mine.”

― C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

You express it much better than I do. It's hard to pinpoint why I reacted negatively to his comments. I don't believe he meant to intentionally insult anyone. But his comments did seem to lack sensitivity. I believe in a God that is much more compassionate and less regimented in what He requires of us. And He has provided a gospel for us that is "one size fits all" only in certain areas and in certain covenants we make. I just can't believe He would require the missionary couple to turn away from their child in such dire circumstances.

Edited August 20, 2012 by carlimac

[Vort]

I know its our culture. And I know we need so much patience and loving tolerance with each other as we each attempt to teach each other the gospel. And thank goodness there is a Spirit to help us sort through it all.

I believe you are missing the point, which is that we have an imperfect language. We cannot express things of the Spirit in clinically flawless language, because our speech does not contain the correct concepts. Those can be expressed only by the Spirit.

Since the Lord himself uses hyperbole to teach, you might consider not rejecting such a teaching method out of hand.

Edited August 20, 2012 by Vort

[Misshalfway]

You express it much better than I do. It's hard to pinpoint why I reacted negatively to his comments. I don't believe he meant to intentionally insult anyone. But his comments did seem to lack sensitivity. I believe in a God that is much more compassionate and less regimented in what He requires of us. And He has provided a gospel for us that is "one size fits all" only in certain areas and in certain covenants we make. I just can't believe He would require the missionary couple to turn away from their child in such dire circumstances.

Yeah. I think I get what you are saying. It's like you know the speaker is the salt of the earth and you even get the intent of what they were trying to say, but at the same time there's something off about it.

I couldn't even say what the Lord wanted for that couple. I'm not sure either decision was more valiant than the other. I had a friend whose sister died in a car accident while he was in the MTC. He was suppose to give the eulogy. He prayed a lot and got some really spiritual experiences. He wrote his comments for someone else to read and he chose to stay in the mission field. His mission leaders said he could go home, but he made the choice he felt was best. And as far as I know, he never had a regret.

And I know other circumstances where people didn't follow the perfect mormon schedule and their lives were just as blest.

I don't know. I guess I'm just saying I've had the similar experience and I think it's ok to question things. Especially if the spirit tells you something is off. Maybe the spirit wants to teach us more of the nuances in things.

[MorningStar]

It seems like most talks have the potential of offending someone. It's hard for infertile couples to hear that we are supposed to have children. It's hard for single people to hear we are supposed to get married in the temple. It's hard for couples with financial troubles to hear that a mom should stay home and raise their kids if she can. I know someone who is even offended by talks revolving around happiness because they aren't happy.

In the church we tend to speak to the majority, not to the exception. I always tell myself, "Do (fill in the blank) unless the Spirit tells you otherwise." I don't have to be weighed down with guilt by everything I hear that the majority is supposed to do. Lots of things I definitely need to listen to and change, of course.

I heard an interesting thing about senior missionaries. One of the most common reasons couples don't go is because they have a pet at home. There really are tons of excuses not to go and a million things that could happen while they're gone, but sacrifice is necessary. I'm just grateful that I don't have to deal with my husband being called on a lengthy mission like it used to be.

I think the point is, we didn't spread the Gospel by being in our comfort zone. Going on a mission is hard for everyone.

[pam]

But I think the couple making a conscious choice to go to their mission rather than to go comfort their son in his time of need was over the top and unnecessary.

I don't. My best friend died in 2001. It was sudden and unexpected. Her son was on a mission at the time. Instead of coming home to be with family and to attend his mother's funeral..he chose to stay on his mission. He knew that's where he needed to be and he also knew that's where his mother would want him to be.

So examples such as the one given in the talk you heard do happen.

[Backroads]

It is a sad and confusing grey area.

How best to word it? I don't know.

I truly believe there are few excuses for a worthy young man NOT to honor his priesthood duty and serve a mission. I believe we are in a time period where all sorts of young men are coming up with excuses not to serve a mission--and expect to be put in the same category as those who had medical/mental issues or the like.

Where it the line drawn?

I believe we shouldn't judge others on why or why not they chose to serve a mission. It's none of our business.

It's unfortunate that we use such odd stories to champion our missionaries.

But at the same time is it really okay for us to send the message of "Oh, you don't have to serve a mission if it isn't convenient enough for you?"

[applepansy]

But I think the couple making a conscious choice to go to their mission rather than to go comfort their son in his time of need was over the top and unnecessary.

I don't think its over the top. And we don't know what the parents said to their son or what their son said to them. I can't imagine a couple who choose to go on a mission telling their son "sorry we're not coming home for the funeral" Rather I think they probably said "We'll come back if you need us"

I didn't hear how the speaker told these stories but what I got out of the Senior Missionary story is that they and their son understood the Plan of Salvation and that when life ends here on earth its not the END.

[shdwlkr]

I have not read all the posts here but let me tell you a little about me. When in college I was asked to go on a mission the church would have paid all the expenses because I was the only member in my family still am. My parents didn't want me to go so I honored my parents and didn't go. Two years later I was in the military that was back in 1969 when Vietnam was the game in the world. No I didn't go to Vietnam I did spend 7 years with the Army and saw some pretty challenging things. I did get to see what war does to the human body, mind and spirit though. See my mission if you want to call it that lasted 7 years and was much more of a challenge for me than a mission for the church ever could have been.

As to not attending your son when he was in such a state of emotional uncertainty I have to wonder if they in fact did do the right thing. Heavenly father puts challenges and forces us to make decisions in this life that we will have to explain in the next. I know if it where my son and he had called to let me know what was going on I would have gotten to his side as fast as I could as at that point in time he needed to know that his dad and mother cared enough about his well being to drop everything and be with him and his wife. The family is supposed to be the most important relationship we have in this life and to not see this, not understand this makes me wonder just how effective can you be as a missionary when you can not have enough compassion for your son and daughter-in-law to be by their side at one of the most trying times in our mortal lives.

You see my first wife of many many years ago was murdered. My family was there for me as much as they could be both my parents and the church. That example will stay with me for all my life and to not do this just seems wrong to me.

[Misshalfway]

I was studying a little of Alma on Saturday night. It was the story of the Anti-Nephi-Lehi's and how they offered up their sons to fight the battle. I was pondering a lot about the language the scriptures used concerning making and keeping covenants.

The A-N-L's mad a covenant not to shed blood anymore. They buried their weapons of war as a symbol. Their covenant went so far that they wouldn't even make preparations for war. Not sure exactly what that meant but it sounds to me like they weren't doing much to protect themselves even.

This must have been a hard thing at times. Because this meant that when the Lamanites (who were coming down pretty hard) came to threaten their freedom, they had to let the Nephites fight for them. The Nephites were surely happy to do so and held such reverence about covenant keeping that they wouldn't let the A-N-L's break their covenants even though it was tempting to do so.

So they let their sons, who hadn't made this particular covenant fight. And then these young men make a different sort of covenant that they would offer their lives for the freedom of the people. And they all suffered a great deal doing it.

I can't imagine what it must have been like for both groups. Heck, I can't even let the RS sisters fold my underwear without feeling guilt. I can't imagine how hard it was for them to watch the Nephites lose so many so they could keep their covenant. And if I were there watching so many suffer and perish without support from HQ, I might want to send a strongly worded letter like Moroni did to Pahoran.

Missions are covenants. When we go into missionary service we are consecrating ourselves. And we don't go home when we feel sad. Heck, we don't even call home when we feel sad! Our covenants plant our feet so when the winds of our emotions and circumstances change like the weather, we can stand firm.

The church isn't as "strict" for senior missionaries. They can come and go and do in ways the youngers don't. But I think there is something to be said for keeping the commitment regardless of the changes that happen in our lives.

I'm still not passing judgment on anyone who might leave the mission to attend a funeral, or any other emergency. I just can't put that in the same category as skipping out on a mission out of selfishness. But I do feel the spirit when I think about this kind of covenant keeping and the state of the heart that it requires/produces.

[NeuroTypical]

"all young men need to go on a mission. There is no excuse not to go."

I thought about this all night, trying to figure out where my disagreement lies. I figured it out - the word need is vague and needs clarification. Why is it a need? What is it a need for? Exhaltation? Nope. Need a mission to be prophet someday? Nope. Need a mission to find a worthy spouse and be sealed in the temple some day? It might increase your odds, but Nuh-uh.

All worthy and able young men need to go on a mission, if they wish to be full and true disciples of Christ at that stage in their lives, and follow and keep all Gods commandments? That sounds a lot better - I'll go with that one, no problem. I can think of a half-dozen other similar ways to clarify what "need" means that I can stand behind. I can think of a dozen more reasons why a mission is a good and wonderful thing, that can be expressed adequately without using the word "need".

I bet if someone asked the guy to clarify that word, he'd respond and clarify and few of us would have a problem with the clarification.

Edited August 20, 2012 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[Vort]

I thought about this all night, trying to figure out where my disagreement lies. I figured it out - the word need is vague and needs clarification. Why is it a need? What is it a need for? Exhaltation? Nope. Need a mission to be prophet someday? Nope. Need a mission to find a worthy spouse and be sealed in the temple some day? It might increase your odds, but Nuh-uh.

All worthy and able young men need to go on a mission, if they wish to be full and true disciples of Christ at that stage in their lives, and follow and keep all Gods commandments? That sounds a lot better - I'll go with that one, no problem. I can think of a half-dozen other similar ways to clarify what "need" means that I can stand behind. I can think of a dozen more reasons why a mission is a good and wonderful thing, that can be expressed adequately without using the word "need".

I bet if someone asked the guy to clarify that word, he'd respond and clarify and few of us would have a problem with the clarification.

Would it have helped if the wording had been more like this?

All men need to receive and honor the Priesthood, one inescapable duty of which is missionary service. Those who hold the Priesthood keys on this earth have made it clear that, for those of appropriate age (i.e. young adult men), full-time missionary service is an expected, indeed mandatory, duty, unless specifically dismissed from so serving.

If so, consider his words to have been a shorthand version of the above.

[MarginOfError]

Sometimes I get frustrated with the black and white portrayals of situations that don't have just one right answer.

It's been my observation that mission presidents (and missionaries) become so engrossed into their one corner of building the kingdom that they tend to lose perspective on how the missionary program dovetails with the other parts of the kingdom. This is an understandable consequence of the program. If you stick all of your brightest and best together in a homogeneous group, they will almost inevitably begin to assume that the variability in their own system is a valid estimate of the variability outside of their system.

The mission presidents comments may have been poorly thought out, but I don't believe they were malicious and I do think they are a natural side effect of running the missionary program the way that we do. This is a case where I'm willing to brush off the remark and do as LM suggests; buddy up to those who might be affected.

[Finrock]

I guess I don't understand what the dilemma is. It's offensive to say that every young man should serve a mission?

First of all, why get offended at all? We choose to get offended, so what the speaker said is irrelevant to the question of being offended. If you get offended by someone's words its because you wanted to be offended by them.

Every priesthood holder is obligated to serve a mission. That is gospel truth. They should do everything in their power to serve (live worthy, repent, etc.) and only if they cannot serve due to circumstance out of their control are they excused. Being a sinner isn't an excuse. It doesn't nullify the priesthood obligation. It might prevent one from going but it doesn't excuse them from the obligation.

Regards,

Finrock

[pam]

I guess I don't understand what the dilemma is. It's offensive to say that every young man should serve a mission?

First of all, why get offended at all? We choose to get offended, so what the speaker said is irrelevant to the question of being offended. If you get offended by someone's words its because you wanted to be offended by them.

Every priesthood holder is obligated to serve a mission. That is gospel truth. They should do everything in their power to serve (live worthy, repent, etc.) and only if they cannot serve due to circumstance out of their control are they excused. Being a sinner isn't an excuse. It doesn't nullify the priesthood obligation. It might prevent one from going but it doesn't excuse them from the obligation.

Regards,

Finrock

I don't think the dilemma is whether every young man should serve a mission. I think it was the use of the word "need" that is causing the variety of responses.