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

[carlimac]

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?

I'm not out to change the whole program. I'm merely pointing out some of the natural consequences of the system the way it is right now. The church is imperfect. The Gospel isn't.

[carlimac]

As far as I can tell, it is optional and always has been optional.

Yes, "commandments" (as young men serving missions has been labeled on this board) always are optional. We all have free agency to follow them or not but the consequences aren't optional. Apparently though, the stigma of not going on a mission without some obvious outward evidence of inability to serve like a physical handicap, is automatic. We steadfast and stalwart members of the church would be foolish to deny that it happens. That is really unfortunate!

[Backroads]

I'm not out to change the whole program. I'm merely pointing out some of the natural consequences of the system the way it is right now. The church is imperfect. The Gospel isn't.

But you said missions should be optional. That's changing the program. If you're going to make such a suggestion, you should have strategies in place for the consequences.

I understand that you're suggesting making missions optional in the priesthood would result in devoted missionaries and better missionary work. Is that correct?

What I'm saying is that by making missions optional, they would be less focused upon. Yes, the truly crazy-about-gospel young men might choose to serve them, and they might do bang-up jobs, but I believe it would also mean FAR FEWER missionaries in the field and the gospel would not be spread.

And let's be honest: no matter how fervant or lousy the missionary, it's the Spirit that's converting people.

Edited August 21, 2012 by Backroads

[EarlJibbs]

But you said missions should be optional. That's changing the program. If you're going to make such a suggestion, you should have strategies in place for the consequences.

I understand that you're suggesting making missions optional in the priesthood would result in devoted missionaries and better missionary work. Is that correct?

What I'm saying is that by making missions optional, they would be less focused upon. Yes, the truly crazy-about-gospel young men might choose to serve them, and they might do bang-up jobs, but I believe it would also mean FAR FEWER missionaries in the field and the gospel would not be spread.

And let's be honest: no matter how fervant or lousy the missionary, it's the Spirit that's converting people.

I agree with you Backroads. To add on. How many missionaries go out for the wrong reasons, but come return with a more solid testimony? I may be an example of someone that went just to go. I new the church was true, although my knowledge of the gospel was not what is could have been. I did want to go, but not because I had a desire to baptise a thousand people in a river, I felt a pressure to go since it was my duty and I went. I worked hard and returned with a testimony to suit. Regardless of how many people were baptized, I was converted along with everyone else. How many missionaries go because of this? I think there are plenty. Plenty enough to have it be a duty.

[Misshalfway]

Yes, "commandments" (as young men serving missions has been labeled on this board) always are optional. We all have free agency to follow them or not but the consequences aren't optional. Apparently though, the stigma of not going on a mission without some obvious outward evidence of inability to serve like a physical handicap, is automatic. We steadfast and stalwart members of the church would be foolish to deny that it happens. That is really unfortunate!

I hope I'm not sounding like I'm denying the stigma happens. And like you, I'd like to see the general attitude shift a bit. But I don't think the answer is changing the church's position on things. In fact, I think the principles of the priesthood, WofW, Chastity...whatever it is MUST withstand every wind of opinion, emotion, or life experience.

And I'm not sure people change their minds about things unless they have experience that sort of forces it. Like you don't know what it's like to have an autistic kid, or SSA, or anxiety disorder,.... or to be stigmatized because you don't follow the mormon schedule.... unless it happens to you or someone close to you. And until we develop that empathy for one another and we learn what our baptismal covenants mean in terms of bearing one another's burdens, I'm afraid we'll continue to do a lot of judging of one another's behaviors. And as long as we judge each other, we'll have problematic stigma to deal with.

[Backroads]

I agree with you Backroads. To add on. How many missionaries go out for the wrong reasons, but come return with a more solid testimony? I may be an example of someone that went just to go. I new the church was true, although my knowledge of the gospel was not what is could have been. I did want to go, but not because I had a desire to baptise a thousand people in a river, I felt a pressure to go since it was my duty and I went. I worked hard and returned with a testimony to suit. Regardless of how many people were baptized, I was converted along with everyone else. How many missionaries go because of this? I think there are plenty. Plenty enough to have it be a duty.

Yes. THIS is why I have no problem with it being a duty. There is so much in life that you do just because it's the right thing to do. I'm not discounting the importance of having a spiritually prepared and worthy missionary, but I don't think that definition pertains only to the missionaries who are just dying to get out there and preach the gospel because they're so alive with that gospel firey zeal. That definition also pertains to those missionaries who are going because they know it is their duty to serve.

It's not about individual missionaries. Spreading the gospel is much more important than that.

[Guest]

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.

I agree with this 100%. I don't agree that he has a hard and fast deadline of 25 years old to "git 'r done" or else he's branded lazy, loser, unworthy, whatever. Like I said - 19-25 mission is not the only missionary program in the church.

[Finrock]

Good afternoon anatess! I hope you are doing well. :)

I agree with this 100%. I don't agree that he has a hard and fast deadline of 25 years old to "git 'r done" or else he's branded lazy, loser, unworthy, whatever. Like I said - 19-25 mission is not the only missionary program in the church.

It is true that there are other missionary programs in the Church other than serving a mission when you are 19-25. However, the obligation still remains. If at all possible, a 19-25 year old priesthood holder needs to serve a mission, if they intend to fulfill all of their priesthood obligations and if they intend to obey God's commandments. Yes, there is a deadline of 19-25 to serve as a young full-time missionary and it is an obligation to do it at that age, if at all possible. I also agree that if a young man doesn't go on their mission when they are 19-25 that they should not be branded anything.

Regards,

Finrock

[Guest]

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.

You got it, Backroads!

I have no problem with the Mission President saying what he said in the pulpit. But, that's not how I'm teaching my children. My teaching centers around Preparation with the #1 requirement being their very own testimony - not mine nor their fathers but their very own built on a rock and not on sand (primary song this month - Wise Man and Foolish Man, how appropriate is that!). Even if it takes them a lifetime to get there. I've said this a jillion times in this forum. I don't really care if my kids leave the church and become Catholics or something - as long as they are diligently, faithfully, honestly, humbly, with all their hearts, minds, and strength, seeking for truth of all things. If their journey leads them out of the church before going back again, I'm ok with it. I have faith in the power of the Holy Spirit and the power of my testimony and my husband's testimony to guide my children to the path to Christ and the Father who art in heaven.

If they don't make it there by age 25, I'm okay with it. Missionary work does not end. The 2-year full-time thing between 19-25 is not the only missionary work there is. Their testimonies, once it is founded on rock, will lead them to missionary service. I have no doubt of it. I see it with my husband every single day. A testimony as strong as that cannot be hidden under a bushel. It just shines out of him. An integral part of who he is.

Edited August 22, 2012 by anatess

[Guest]

Good afternoon anatess! I hope you are doing well. :)

It is true that there are other missionary programs in the Church other than serving a mission when you are 19-25. However, the obligation still remains. If at all possible, a 19-25 year old priesthood holder needs to serve a mission, if they intend to fulfill all of their priesthood obligations and if they intend to obey God's commandments. Yes, there is a deadline of 19-25 to serve as a young full-time missionary and it is an obligation to do it at that age, if at all possible. I also agree that if a young man doesn't go on their mission when they are 19-25 that they should not be branded anything.

Regards,

Finrock

It's like chicken and the egg. You put the emphasis on the obligation. I put the emphasis on the preparation.

In the end - it achieves the same goal. My approach emphasizes more the importance of the path leading to be qualified to go. Your approach emphasizes more on the going and working your way backwards putting exceptions. I don't do exceptions. It's harder to teach exceptions. The preparation does not allow for exceptions.

Edited August 22, 2012 by anatess

[Backroads]

While I continue by my belief that going on a misison is a priesthood duty and I believe there is an allowable spectrum of spiritual readiness, I am vehemently against sending out missionaries who just shouldn't be there-whether they are unworthy or just not spiritually prepared enough.

I think a person can believe all worthy young men should prepare for missions and serve them if at all possible without calling the lack of a 2-year mission a crime and that non-missionary a criminal.

[carlimac]

Good afternoon anatess! I hope you are doing well. :)

It is true that there are other missionary programs in the Church other than serving a mission when you are 19-25. However, the obligation still remains. If at all possible, a 19-25 year old priesthood holder needs to serve a mission, if they intend to fulfill all of their priesthood obligations and if they intend to obey God's commandments. Yes, there is a deadline of 19-25 to serve as a young full-time missionary and it is an obligation to do it at that age, if at all possible. I also agree that if a young man doesn't go on their mission when they are 19-25 that they should not be branded anything.

Regards,

Finrock

The church authorities don't officially brand them. It's the members who let their minds wander into other peoples' business and gossip about those young men. "He's 20 and hasn't gone on a mission? Hmmm, what's the problem here? Does he have a girlfriend? No. I bet it's porn. Maybe he's gay. "

You know it happens Finrock. Nobody can deny that it does. It's quiet, insidious, hurtful and destructive. What's the solution? Maybe we need another passionate talk by Elder Holland telling us to butt out of other people's lives and let them just live.

Edited August 22, 2012 by carlimac

[Backroads]

I would like to put my stance another way:

I'm not against young men who just aren't ready not serving.

However, I'm against the school of thought suggesting that you shouldn't have to go on a mission if you just don't want to.

Some might say that if they were truly spiritually ready, they would be chomping at the bit to go. I disagree with this.

I believe there are plenty of fine young men in the church who have testimonies and that spark of gospel light... who would rather attend college, get a job, date a pretty girl [who hasn't been raised against the idea of non-RMs], hang out with their friends, etc. and continue to do nice things around their home wards and communities than serve a full-time mission, if given the choice.

Does this make them bad wordly boys completely devoid of any spiritual preparation? No. Probably just makes them your average young adult boys who will see what is the littlest possible they can get away with.

I am one of those rather lazy individuals who has good intentions but doesn't necessarily accomplish them unless I have a little more pressure and a push or two.

If you aren't ready to go, you aren't ready to go, and I think anatess made a great argument why and what to do about it. But there is a big difference between the not-quite-to-the-spiritual minimum/the medically/mentally unable boys/other similar cases and the boys who think they are doing just fine and don't need to serve a mission in order to fully honor their priesthood.

[Backroads]

The church authorities don't officially brand them. It's the members who let their minds wander into other peoples' business and gossip about those young men. "He's 20 and hasn't gone on a mission? Hmmm, what's the problem here? Does he have a girlfriend? No. I bet it's porn. Maybe he's gay. "

You know it happens Finrock. Nobody can deny that it does. It's quiet, insidious, hurtful and destructive. What's the solution? Maybe we need another passionate talk by Elder Holland telling us to butt out of other people's lives and let them just live.

I think that's just the sort of talk we need.

I don't think there is any real connection between the principles and policies of missionary work and our tendencies to judge others. Let's focus on the latter and let missionary work stand.

[Finrock]

It's like chicken and the egg. You put the emphasis on the obligation. I put the emphasis on the preparation.

In the end - it achieves the same goal. My approach emphasizes more the importance of the path leading to be qualified to go. Your approach emphasizes more on the going and working your way backwards putting exceptions. I don't do exceptions. It's harder to teach exceptions. The preparation does not allow for exceptions.

I'm only emphasising the obligation because the obligation is being questioned. I don't see spiritual preparation as a separate issue. Our obligation includes the obligation to be spiritually prepared. I think you've read too much in to my post because I haven't given any explanation as to how I approach this subject. I have no idea what you mean when you say my "approach emphasizes more on the going and working your way backwards putting exceptions". What do you mean by this?

Regards,

Finrock

[Backroads]

In an effort to understand Finrock's post...(correct me if I'm wrong)

Part of serving a mission is preparing for it. It's not a separate step. Finrock is saying that when a person has prepared for a mission, he will serve it, or at least make a proper attempt to.

If that's a correct analysis, I see nothing about it that is focusing more on the serving than the preparing.

My next question is if possessing the excitement to serve a mission is significantly more important than the preparation and actually serving it--whether one is super-excited about it or not.

[Iggy]

The church authorities don't officially brand them. It's the members who let their minds wander into other peoples' business and gossip about those young men. "He's 20 and hasn't gone on a mission? Hmmm, what's the problem here? Does he have a girlfriend? No. I bet it's porn. Maybe he's gay. "

You know it happens Finrock. Nobody can deny that it does. It's quiet, insidious, hurtful and destructive. What's the solution? Maybe we need another passionate talk by Elder Holland telling us to butt out of other people's lives and let them just live.

bold by me.

AMEN, HALLELUJAH

[Backroads]

The church authorities don't officially brand them. It's the members who let their minds wander into other peoples' business and gossip about those young men. "He's 20 and hasn't gone on a mission? Hmmm, what's the problem here? Does he have a girlfriend? No. I bet it's porn. Maybe he's gay. "

You know it happens Finrock. Nobody can deny that it does. It's quiet, insidious, hurtful and destructive. What's the solution? Maybe we need another passionate talk by Elder Holland telling us to butt out of other people's lives and let them just live.

However, what happens if some young man merely assumes people are thinking badly about him? It's not healthy to live in a state of paranoia, especially if it's largely imagined.

[Finrock]

The church authorities don't officially brand them. It's the members who let their minds wander into other peoples' business and gossip about those young men. "He's 20 and hasn't gone on a mission? Hmmm, what's the problem here? Does he have a girlfriend? No. I bet it's porn. Maybe he's gay. "

You know it happens Finrock. Nobody can deny that it does. It's quiet, insidious, hurtful and destructive. What's the solution? Maybe we need another passionate talk by Elder Holland telling us to butt out of other people's lives and let them just live.

I don't mind talking about "branding" but I do want to point out that it is a diversion from the original point. How people judge others has nothing to do with the correctness/truthfulness of the Church policy on missionary work, on commandments that deal with missionary work, and with the priesthood obligation dealing with missionary work.

I have no reason to doubt what you say happens. I don't take part in such things and I don't pay attention to gossip, in general. But, if it happens then that is a problem with those acting like that. I just don't see what that has to do with the commandment for young priesthood holders to serve missions when they are 19-25.

Regards,

Finrock

[Vort]

The church authorities don't officially brand them. It's the members who let their minds wander into other peoples' business and gossip about those young men. "He's 20 and hasn't gone on a mission? Hmmm, what's the problem here? Does he have a girlfriend? No. I bet it's porn. Maybe he's gay. "

If, as you say, the problem is with the actions of the members, why in the world would you possibly suggest that the appropriate solution is to refuse to teach missionary service as a Priesthood duty? Should not your suggestion instead be to teach the members not to engage in such destructive judgmentalism? (Which, by the way, our leaders have assiduously preached.)

What's the solution? Maybe we need another passionate talk by Elder Holland telling us to butt out of other people's lives and let them just live.

Maybe. I am content to let Elder Holland decide how, or if, he wants to approach this issue. But the solution certainly is not to pretend that missionary service is not really a Priesthood duty.

[Leah]

I agree with this 100%. I don't agree that he has a hard and fast deadline of 25 years old to "git 'r done" or else he's branded lazy, loser, unworthy, whatever. Like I said - 19-25 mission is not the only missionary program in the church.

While there may be opportunities to serve other kinds of missions in the church - ward missionaries, senior missions - the existance of those does not remove the priesthood obligation.

It seems that for some who do not serve a mission, one sees the same pattern that appears when people choose not to follow church teachings/obligations in other matters....they make the decision on what they do/do not want to do FIRST...and then look around for justification for it.

And, no, I am not saying that men who do not serve a mission are somehow unworthy or 'less'. There are reasons that some men are unable to serve a typical mission. That doesn't change the existence of the obligation.

[Vort]

I would like to put my stance another way:

I'm not against young men who just aren't ready not serving.

However, I'm against the school of thought suggesting that you shouldn't have to go on a mission if you just don't want to.

Some might say that if they were truly spiritually ready, they would be chomping at the bit to go. I disagree with this.

I believe there are plenty of fine young men in the church who have testimonies and that spark of gospel light... who would rather attend college, get a job, date a pretty girl [who hasn't been raised against the idea of non-RMs], hang out with their friends, etc. and continue to do nice things around their home wards and communities than serve a full-time mission, if given the choice.

Does this make them bad wordly boys completely devoid of any spiritual preparation? No. Probably just makes them your average young adult boys who will see what is the littlest possible they can get away with.

I am one of those rather lazy individuals who has good intentions but doesn't necessarily accomplish them unless I have a little more pressure and a push or two.

If you aren't ready to go, you aren't ready to go, and I think anatess made a great argument why and what to do about it. But there is a big difference between the not-quite-to-the-spiritual minimum/the medically/mentally unable boys/other similar cases and the boys who think they are doing just fine and don't need to serve a mission in order to fully honor their priesthood.

Amen.

I performed my missionary service proudly, if not effectively. I served my mission because I wanted to serve. But why did I want to serve? Because I had been taught from my earliest childhood that it was my duty to do so. If I had not believed, deep down, that it was my duty to serve -- if, as carlimac suggests, I had merely thought it was one possibility among many, and that there was no divine or other expectation that I give up a year and a half (more like two and a half years, including work time) to go serve a mission that I was invited but certainly not expected to serve -- would I have gone?

I very seriously doubt it.

I went because I wanted to do my duty. I didn't go because I thought it might be a good idea to sacrifice the ten thousand dollars I had earned working at a pizza restaurant and an ice cream shop, not to tour Italy, but to go live there and knock on people's doors and eat substandard food and avoid looking at girls and not even think about dating.

Not one young man in a hundred -- not one in a thousand -- would willingly give up the first years of his adult life to spend all the money he had so painstakingly earned and get paid NOT A CENT just because someone told him it was a good idea.

In fact, anyone with an ounce of sense would realize that if he was looking for charitable work to do, he could do as much or more good serving at home, where expenses were lower and dating was allowed, than he could off somewhere he had never been before and where he might not even speak the language. The fact that missionary work is such a tremendous blessing is evidence, not that it's such an obviously good idea that people would naturally flock to it, but that it is established and maintained by God.

Bottom line: If you fail to teach Priesthood holders that missionary work is a duty assigned them from God, the missionary program dies. There cannot reasonably be two opinions on the matter.

[Finrock]

Good afternoon Backroads! I hope you are having a good day. :)

In an effort to understand Finrock's post...(correct me if I'm wrong)

Part of serving a mission is preparing for it. It's not a separate step. Finrock is saying that when a person has prepared for a mission, he will serve it, or at least make a proper attempt to.

If that's a correct analysis, I see nothing about it that is focusing more on the serving than the preparing.

Thanks for trying to understand my post.

I'm saying that our priesthood obligation to serve full-time missions is real. If a young man understands his duty and his obligation then he will also understand that he needs to live his life so that he will be ready to go when the time comes to go.

Our young men need to know that serving a full-time mission is a commandment so that they can understand how important it is for them to prepare and to be worthy to serve missions when the time comes. They also need to understand that if they choose to ignore this obligation to serve a mission by not preparing or by not being worthy to serve when the time comes, then they will be held accountable to God for breaking this covenant and that they will miss out on a tremendous blessing not only for them but for others as well.

Regards,

Finrock

[carlimac]

I don't mind talking about "branding" but I do want to point out that it is a diversion from the original point. How people judge others has nothing to do with the correctness/truthfulness of the Church policy on missionary work, on commandments that deal with missionary work, and with the priesthood obligation dealing with missionary work.

I have no reason to doubt what you say happens. I don't take part in such things and I don't pay attention to gossip, in general. But, if it happens then that is a problem with those acting like that. I just don't see what that has to do with the commandment for young priesthood holders to serve missions when they are 19-25.

Regards,

Finrock

No, it has everything to do with the original point. Go back and read it. I should know. I wrote it. I wasn't referring at all to Church policy or commandments. I was talking about how those young men I know who were in the congregation are supposed to deal with the statement coming from a mission president -"Every young man in the church should serve a mission." One of those young men tried three times. Once, he got as far as the MTC and was there for 5 weeks before being sent home because of an anxiety disorder. I'm saying that what the mission president said was insensitive to those young men who have a valid reason for not going. Not EVERY young man should serve a mission. When a man in an authority position makes these kinds of statements over the pulpit, it's a set back for the kids who are trying but just not cutting it. When the bar is set too high, the ones who don't make it potentially end up living with guilt and worse ( bitterness, anger, indifference to the church) for the rest of their lives. How do we prevent that from happening?? It shouldn't happen. I think leaders need to be more sensitive to the myriad situations in life (like LM's- caring for his ailing mother) and hundreds of other situations that would and should legitimately keep a young man home.

I'm not saying young men shouldn't be encouraged to go. Yes they should but it needs to be put in different terms -embracing the reality of all that life throws at us, even at the age of 19. I think every young man who is active in the church should have an interview with the bishop (I assume this happens most of the time) to determine if it's the right thing for them to do in the immediate future. If not, the bishop should determine how to help, what resources finincial or otherwise might be needed. Are there things to be repented of? Are there physical or emotional issues that need special attention? Is the family dependent on that young man for sustenance? Can the young man truthfully say he knows the church is true? If any of these hoops just can't be jumped through, then the young man should get a pass from the bishop and from himself so that he can move forward with his life and stay close to the Lord. And the ward should just assume he's doing the best he can, leaving judgement up to Heavenly Father.

Edited August 22, 2012 by carlimac

[Backroads]

And yet the point these leaders make is a true one. A caveat about how some young men just aren't able to go would be a nice thing to add to these talks. But that statement itself, even how it's worded, doesn't bother me.