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

[Backroads]

When you grow up LDS and turn 19, it's time for you to begin your Priesthood duty of full-time missionary service. If you have not prepared yourself and your testimony, then you may not be fit to serve. And that likely means you will not serve. But that is hardly an excuse.

A man who just wasn't spiritually ready at the age spectrum for his mission may later give that as his reason for not going--and I'd fully respect him for that. Maybe it took him longer than the 19 years of life to get his testimony together--it happens.

In and of itself, not being spiritually ready is a reason not to serve a mission.

And yet, are you really supposed until you turn 19-25 to start working on your spirituality? I don't think so.

[carlimac]

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.

If he had said these words (bolded), it would have made all the difference! But he didn't.

[Backroads]

I know this is me being Negative Nancy, but even if the speaker had said all the more-detailed mission instructions people have suggested, you are still going to have non-mission-servers offended. There is still going to be that guy that chose to pursue his girlfriend or get an early start on college who will try to make that his good excuse.

[Guest]

True. That is why part of the statement is to prepare to serve a mission. Part of that preparation is developing and strengthening your testimony.

Suppose you plan to go out for football in college. The coach tells you to get yourself ready for the team. So you show up at the tryouts, not having lifted weights, studied the playbook, or even played football at all for high school. You say, "Look, coach, I'd like to play football, but I'm not really quite prepared yet. How about you just save me the scholarship while I go and find my football talent?"

Somehow, I don't think that is going to fly.

When you grow up LDS and turn 19, it's time for you to begin your Priesthood duty of full-time missionary service. If you have not prepared yourself and your testimony, then you may not be fit to serve. And that likely means you will not serve. But that is hardly an excuse.

And just like I said - the 2-year mission from 19-25 years of age is not the end-all be-all of missionary work.

There is no "deadline" for gaining that testimony. You can prepare all your life for it and not find it by the time you're 19 or even 25. It's not that you're stupid or your dumb or you're not studying enough or you're busy chasing girls or football scholarships. The journey to the truth is as unique as we are all unique. And if you've given it your best and you still haven't gained it by the window of opportunity, don't force yourself to go on a mission just because people expect you to go or that they might think you selfish.

Prepare for missionary work. Yes. 100% behind that. You need to serve the 2-year mission... or you're selfish, not so. Missionary service is a daily thing for us LDS folks - regardless of age or ability or station in life. You miss the 2-year full-time opportunity, there's tons more opportunities for you down the road.

Well, this is what I'm telling the kids. Just like 8-years-old is not the "deadline" for baptisms. My children were taught - you will be baptized when you're ready to be baptized. And that is - you believe in God, the Atonement of Jesus Christ, and the restored gospel. Not sooner. Fortunately, they were ready to get dunked before they turned 8. So, all they had to do was wait for their age. I'm hoping it will be the same by the time they turn 19.

Edited August 20, 2012 by anatess

[MarginOfError]

I know this is me being Negative Nancy, but even if the speaker had said all the more-detailed mission instructions people have suggested, you are still going to have non-mission-servers offended. There is still going to be that guy that chose to pursue his girlfriend or get an early start on college who will try to make that his good excuse.

If that's good enough for him, that's good enough for me. I may express my disappointment once (emphasis on "once"), but after that, it doesn't get brought up again.

[MarginOfError]

So, you don't think the general membership of the church understands that God doesn't punish people for things they have absolutely no control over?

Regards,

Finrock

http://www.lds.net/forums/open-discussion/37101-wet-dreams-sin.html

Apparently we're not getting the message across.

And no, I don't think the general membership is as intelligent and discerning as you are.

[Backroads]

If that's good enough for him, that's good enough for me. I may express my disappointment once (emphasis on "once"), but after that, it doesn't get brought up again.

And I hope I would be the same. But do we have to try to alter all our words as not to offend ANYONE?

[MarginOfError]

And I hope I would be the same. But do we have to try to alter all our words as not to offend ANYONE?

I think it's reasonable to alter our words to avoid offending people that might have obvious conflicts with service.

Edited August 20, 2012 by MarginOfError
Original: I think it's reasonable to alter our wards to avoid offending people that might have obvious conflicts with service

[Misshalfway]

Would he have told the same story in stake conference if they had chosen otherwise? Probably not because what's inspiring about just serving, loving and supporting your children in crisis?

Yeah. Sometimes when we are speaking we think we need to super sonic inspirational story. But maybe all that "theater" fails to uplift the way we hope it will. Maybe it just gets in the way.

[NeuroTypical]

Do you feel your decision of caring for your mother, who was in need, was the right one at the time? Do you feel comfortable and secure in your choice? Do you feel you are currently in good standing with God?

No I dont, no I don't, and yes I do. If I could go back in time, I'd advise the younger me from a position of hindsight to go on a mission. As it happened, I took a convenient excuse which every decent person would be forced to accept (just like you all have), and used it to cover up the real reason behind my choice - I had no testimony and was scared.

(Sorry - I should have made this clear earlier. I honestly wasn't trying to entrap anyone or pull a dirty trick here.)

That said, without perfect hindsight, I can't really judge a kid in a similar situation. I can just tell them how experiences and choices played out, especially the regret at not going on a mission, so they can make the best decision.

I don't understand what this has to do with the duty of young worthy men who have no excuses and their choices not to serve missions.

I guess it has to do with the SP clearly identifying who he was talking to and who he wasn't.

But I also want to avoid the laundry list of reasons not to go.

...

If we start saying "you don't have to go" and just that without a serious and thorough discussion of righteous principles, the importance of a mission will decrease in value and become something you only do if it seems fun.

I wholeheartedly agree.

We are speaking about two different things. To me it is obvious that if a person is unable to go because of circumstances out of their control then they aren't responsible. I didn't realize that something that is assumed in all other conversations about the gospel needed to be explicitly clarified.

Yeah, that's what it comes down to me also. We have no disagreement about obvious truths. I'm just nitpicking how some random SP communicated those truths. What is obvious to the 99 may not be obvious to the 1. As a default spokesperson for all the 1's I've encountered in my life, I need to advocate for them. Speaking to the 99 is ok, I guess, as long as the outliers somehow manage to pick up or get told what people really meant, even though they said something different. Speaking to everyone is better.

Obviously God does not punish someone for something they cannot possibly control.

I seem to run into more than my share of people who don't find that obvious at all. They can live tortured and horrible lives because they believe stuff like this. Also likely, is they occasionally reject people and the belief systems they represent, over such miscommunications.

Oh dear. I dont' even know if that's the word he used. Sorry you lost sleep over it. It's the word I chose. It's what I got out of his message. Too bad there are no instant replays of stake conference talks.

Yeah. Well, setting aside the fact that we're all possibly arguing about nothing, I think it's still a good topic! :) Edited August 20, 2012 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[Misshalfway]

And I hope I would be the same. But do we have to try to alter all our words as not to offend ANYONE?

I think you are right. I don't think there is anyway to prevent all offense. People are gonna get bent no matter what.

But I do think that we can teach correct principles without putting unnecessary straightjackets all over it.

If we are teaching by the scriptures, sound principles, and spirit, we'll do just fine. And I hope that we're not only teaching compliance. I hope we are teaching wisdom too.

[carlimac]

We are speaking about two different things. To me it is obvious that if a person is unable to go because of circumstances out of their control then they aren't responsible. I didn't realize that something that is assumed in all other conversations about the gospel needed to be explicitly clarified. If that is the extent of your objection, then there really isn't any disagreement. My statements assumes that it is possible for the people being obligated to fulfill that obligation.

But, we assume this in almost all of our gospel conversations. Obviously God does not punish someone for something they cannot possibly control. When we speak of any gospel principle this idea is understood. Why does it need to be explicitly spelled out in this conversation about missionary service?

Regards,

Finrock

Because I've seen the fall out from several young men who tried to serve a mission but failed. It's not pretty. It's heartwrenching. These young men are suffering terribly. It's like grinding salt into their wounds to hear this. I'm looking at this mission president's sweeping statement from their perspective.

Yes there are plenty of young men who are healthy in mind and body but find the worldly excuses not to go on a mission. They need their behind kicked. They probably "need" to go in the worst way. Yes, this mission president's word apply to them.

But at the same time, there are many young men who go out on a mission because of the pressure, obligation, duty and who knows what? Perhaps promises from daddy-o that they'll get a new car when they get home? Girlfriend says she won't marry him if he doesn't go? ... ALL the wrong reasons. I would think that a mission president would have had enough experience with this kind of elders, and to a much lesser degree sisters and seniors, who are not helping the work of the Lord along. In fact, they are doing more harm than good. Both my boys have told me of these kinds of missionaries. They should not be out there. It's a waste of their time and of their zone leaders' and mission president's when they are only out there to mess around, break the rules and cause problems.

So here's how I think the speaker should have qualified his words. "Young men- prepare yourselves spiritually to go on a mission. Find your testimony starting today if you haven't already. READ the Book of Mormon!! Pray about it. Come to love the gospel and the Lord more than your girlfriend, your college education, your car, skiing, surfing, your football scholarship, your video games, etc. so that going on a mission is what you want to do more than anything else. And when the time comes -do it! Follow through. Be courageous even though it's scary. And ( in a softer, compassionate voice) if , and only IF, when the time comes, problems arise that are beyond your control and beyond your best effortsthat keep you from serving a full time mission, know that the Lord loves you dearly and that there is much service and missionary work to be rendered at home. Find every opportunity to serve Him wherever you are."

Edited August 20, 2012 by carlimac

[Backroads]

carlimac, you should have given the talk.

[NeuroTypical]

Indeed. This is why I limit criticizing about people in church to anonymous message boards. Otherwise it's my turn at the mike in 2 weeks.

[Wingnut]

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

Setting aside the issue of offense, the statement "every young man should serve a mission" is false. Some young men can't, through no fault of their own. The church knows this I think, and all the searching on lds.org I've done has taken me to statements like "Every worthy, able young man should prepare to serve a mission." (Liahona - Jan 11)

Ya shouldn't say false things over the pulpit. It causes problems, offense being one of them.

I'm having a hard time with this. It does not computer for me. I understand that things have changed in this department in the last 38 years, but it seems to me that you're saying that this is false:

The question is frequently asked: Should every young man fill a mission? And the answer has been given by the Lord. It is “Yes.” Every young man should fill a mission. He said:

“Send forth the elders of my church unto the nations which are afar off [He said elders—we have been talking about elders]; unto the islands of the sea; send forth unto foreign lands; call upon all nations, first upon the Gentiles, and then upon the Jews.” (D&C 133:8.)

He did not limit it.

The answer is “yes.” Every man should also pay his tithing. Every man should observe the Sabbath. Every man should attend his meetings. Every man should marry in the temple and properly train his children, and do many other mighty works. Of course he should. He does not always do it.

We realize that while all men definitely should, all men are not prepared to teach the gospel abroad. Far too many young men arrive at the missionary age quite unprepared to go on a mission, and of course they should not be sent. But they should all be prepared. There are a few physically unfit to do missionary service, but Paul also had a thorn in his side. There are far too many unfit emotionally and mentally and morally, because they have not kept their lives clean and in harmony with the spirit of missionary work. They should have been prepared. Should! But since they have broken the laws, they may have to be deprived, and thereon hangs one of our greatest challenges: to keep these young boys worthy. Yes, we would say, every able worthy man should shoulder the cross. What an army we should have teaching Christ and him crucified! Yes, they should be prepared, usually with saved funds for their missions, and always with a happy heart to serve.

The Lord says:

“And that every man”—(Did you catch the words, “every man”?) “should take righteousness in his hands and faithfulness upon his loins, and lift a warning voice unto the inhabitants of the earth: and declare both by word and by flight that desolation shall come upon the wicked.” (D&C 63:37.)

Earlier in that same talk, President Kimball said,

I believe it was John Taylor who said, "God will hold us responsible to the people we might have saved, had we done our duty."

and

My brethren, I wonder if we are doing all we can. Are we complacent in our approach to teaching all the world? We have been proselyting now 144 years. Are we prepared to lengthen our stride? To enlarge our vision?

Remember, our ally is our God. He is our commander. He made the plans. He gave the commandment. Remember what we have quoted thousands of times as told by Nephi:

'And it came to pass that I, Nephi, said unto my father: I will go and do the things which the Lord hath commanded, for I know that the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them."

So what you're saying just doesn't compute, for me.

In any case, the story obviously had the opposite of the desired effect on me.

I had that happen to me with a Conference talk a couple years back. Nearly everyone I knew thought it was an amazing, wonderful talk, so inspiring and helpful to their marriages, and blah blah blah. I felt isolated, guilted (but not guilty), and hurt, and I felt the anecdotal content to the talk was highly unrealistic. Fortunately, my husband felt the same (or at least similarly).

[Anddenex]

This Mission President's words are very calm, compared to the words spoken by Elder Holland at the MTC while I was there. I never thought I would hear an Apostle screaming at the pulpit regarding missionary work, and the importance of serving a mission.

I remember these words he said, "Don't you dare come to me about going home from a mission. I LOVED MY MISSION."

The M.P.'s words are icing on a cake compared to the direct language used by Elder Holland. I always thought an Apostle spoke calmly, well, when Elder Holland is moved passionately by the spirit, watch out. He is direct, and his language was much stronger than this M.P.s.

[EarlJibbs]

I may take some heat, oh well. I dont exactly have a problem with what he said. Are there **reasons** to not go on a mission? Yes there are. He could have gone down the long list of all of the reasons that we all think are completely acceptable not to go on a mission. But you know when you have a good reason (not excuse) to not go. If you hear those words and truely doubt and feel bad about not going, maybe you could have worked that out, or still can.

Maybe by cutting the fluffy stuff out of our now "dont tell me what I have to do because that is not proper" society he helped some young man that is now 11 years old place in his mind that he is going to go no matter what. If you feel no pressure to go on a mission, in my opinion, something is wrong. Pressure to do right by your preisthood responsabilities should be a natural feeling.

[Misshalfway]

Indeed. This is why I limit criticizing about people in church to anonymous message boards. Otherwise it's my turn at the mike in 2 weeks.

Oh great! Now I have guilt.

[shdwlkr]

You know as I read the posts here I wonder how many understand this principle of the church?

Yes every young man should prepare to serve a mission, but not every young man will be able to because of shall we say life issues. My adult son could never serve a mission as such because of life issues but you know he serves one every day with everyone he meets. His ward is very protective of him and respect him a lot. His bishop is simply amazed at what he understands and how hard he tries to get it out so others know also.

Life itself maybe the mission we serve and for some it will be long, hard and challenging for others it will be an easy journey. The question is who has the greater rewards and you know I don't have a clue as I can not remember beyond a very few I have met in this life that we knew each other in the pre-existence.

For me my mission was the military where I saw the worst and best of humanity and now so many years later I am studying to be a mental health counselor to our veterans who have mental issues from being in the military and yes I have seen some terrible things and yet I have got past them and can help others in getting past theirs.

When we talk about serving a mission most think of the traditional two years when we are young but you know in reality we all serve a mission of some kind in this life by just being alive and active in the church. I have seen some return missionaries that drink, smoke, do drugs, are abusive, and plain a wreck and yet you I will not put them down for these actions more I feel sorry for them because some where along the journey we call life they lost something and may never again posses it.

The mission President may have walked a little on the hard line side of his talk but the message was a good one if we realize that all should prepare but some will not be able to go in the traditional sense. I am much older now have two small kids that will not need dad in their lives until I am in my 70's but you know I still expect to serve at least one mission and maybe more. Heavenly father has laid out my path in this life and yes I fight it sometimes because it is not an easy path but you know I try to do as he instructs me each step of the way because I know he knows me better than I know myself.

The upsetting thing for me was the missionary couple feeling abandoning their son and daughter-in-law when life had handed them the most challenging of all life issues. I can not accept that this was a good thing to have done. I know in my own life that I have dropped what I was doing to go to my kids aide no matter what the reason for calling dad as I want them to always know a s long as I draw breath in this life they are important to me.

We can tear apart the Mission Presidents talk all we want but the bottom line is he spoke on what was in his heart, what he thought those in attendance needed to hear and what would inspire some to want to go on a mission. None of us can criticize him for that nor should we.

I have a talk to prepare to give in the next few months and you know it is going to be very hard to not point a finger at the members for not doing something I will talk about, but in my heart of hearts I know they are struggling with life issues just like I am and it is so hard to find time to do the Lord's work sometimes and get everything else done also. I hope my talk will help them see the need to participate in what I will talk about and most of all to not feel guilty if life gets in the way and they need to be elsewhere.

Edited August 20, 2012 by shdwlkr

[Suzie]

That is correct. He did not serve a mission.

Or his counselors.

Edited August 21, 2012 by Suzie

[Suzie]

I understand why the words of the Mission President could upset some people. Having said that, I suppose being the way I am I would have just brush it off as the words of a person who is on a mission and is probably a little overly excited about the work.

Elder Oaks said:

"As a General Authority, it is my responsibility to preach general principles. When I do, I don't try to define all the exceptions. There are exceptions to some rules...But don't ask me to give an opinion on your exception. I only teach the general rules. Whether an exception applies to you is your responsibility. You must work that out individually between you and the Lord"

I hope EVERY member knows that and they don't take on every little thing they hear from others because they may have the best intentions but doesn't necessarily mean they are right.

[Finrock]

http://www.lds.net/forums/open-discussion/37101-wet-dreams-sin.html

Apparently we're not getting the message across.

And no, I don't think the general membership is as intelligent and discerning as you are.

I don't have access to the link. In any event, I know the audience here generally understands that God doesn't punish us for things we don't have control over. So, there seems to be some other motivation for requiring an explicit statement of a known truth.

It seems to me that people want to define their own level of sacrifice. There is a taste of relativism in all of this talk about grey areas. The truth is that in the end there are only two choices: the choice God wants you to make and every other choice. We get to choose our actions but we don't get to choose the consequences. If someone decides they don't have to serve a mission then they need to be sure that their obligation to the priesthood has been fulfilled and that they are doing what God wants them to do. At that point it doesn't matter what the other choice is, if God wants you to do something you need to do it. I disagree that a priesthood holder can arbitrarily choose which priesthood covenants and which commandments they are obligated to fulfill and I disagree that we cannot teach and expect our priesthood holders that they ought to, that they need to, fulfill their priesthood covenants by serving a mission, if at all possible.

I believe the SPs story was a wonderful example of the faith of these couple missionaries. They were willing to sacrifice all in order to obey God's commandments. I can't imagine being offended at such a story. I don't even think it was a tacky story or weird, at all.

Regards,

Finrock

[MarginOfError]

I disagree that a priesthood holder can arbitrarily choose which priesthood covenants and which commandments they are obligated to fulfill

But what if the decisions isn't arbitrary?

[Vort]

I disagree that a priesthood holder can arbitrarily choose which priesthood covenants and which commandments they are obligated to fulfill

But what if the decisions isn't arbitrary?

By definition, they are obligated to fulfill all Priesthood covenants and commandments. So any picking and choosing of which they will follow and which they will not is arbitrary.

[Guest]

By definition, they are obligated to fulfill all Priesthood covenants and commandments. So any picking and choosing of which they will follow and which they will not is arbitrary.

But... is serving a mission by going to the 2-year program a covenant/commandment? There's the rub.