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

[carlimac]

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

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

This is the exact kind of language that I believe is hurtful. How do YOU know what they will or will not be held accountable for. We ALL will be held accountable for everything we do in our lives. Our judgement is up to God. Only He knows our hearts and life stories. Let's just leave it to Him. And why do people insist on spinning the negative threat into it? The missing out on a blessing thing? How do you think that young man who tried but failed feels when he hears this? Perhaps his greatest blessing in life will be the counseling and treatment he receives after being sent home from the MTC. Perhaps he will have other opportunities to serve and grow here at home that would be greater than going out and struggling for two years. Tremendous blessings are bestowed by our Heavenly Father. Let's just let Him decide when, to whom and for what he will bestow those blessings.

Yes a mission can be a blessing. Mine was. My boys' missions were/are blessings. (Some missions are not blessings though. Some are just endless torture. ) NO need to emphasize so much the loss of that blessing. It only serves to hurt.

Edited August 22, 2012 by carlimac

[carlimac]

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.

Well it bothers me.

[EarlJibbs]

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.

This reminds me of a time I was asked to teach in Releif Society with my wife about parenthood and Mothers. I really do not like giving lessons about that topic, because there are those in the class that cannot physically have children, are not married and frankly not going to be any time soon. If I were going to go down the list of every way those that didnt have children could apply the lesson into their lives multiple times throughout the lesson...it wouldnt have been given. We did stop for a moment to address this concern, but I did not keep coming back to it.

My parralel is that there is always someone that the message may not apply to. They should know who they are, and if they are so stirred up about it afterwards they can ask questions. The old Mission President could have stated it a different way, but that doesnt mean the statement is any less true.

I have someone in my ward that does forensic work on computers relating to child porn. He would see the stuff all the time pulling it off comupters ( I say what a terrible job). If someone made the blanket statement that everyone needs to stay clear of child porn period, would he then quit his job feeling that he is somehow unrighteous?

You know when you are an exception. And if you have doubts, you seek an answer.

[Vort]

This is the exact kind of language that I believe is hurtful. How do YOU know what they will or will not be held accountable for. We ALL will be held accountable for everything we do in our lives.

There you go. Answered your own question. So what's the problem?

[carlimac]

There you go. Answered your own question. So what's the problem?

What question are you talking about? Or I should say, which one?

[Vort]

carlimac, you're deeply invested in this. You appear not to realize that people are mostly agreeing with the point you seem to be trying to make, but are vehemently disagreeing with the words you are using to make that point.

Everyone agrees that those who cannot serve missions through no fault of their own ought not ever be made to feel substandard.

Everyone agrees that the young man who freely chooses not to serve a mission has not condemned himself to hell, or even to a life of wickedness and debauchery. Such a young man can continue to progress in the gospel and even potentially claim every blessing God has for us in the next life.

Everyone agrees that bribing young men to go on missions with cars or threats is wrong.

BUT WE DO NOT AGREE THAT CHURCH LEADERS SHOULD QUIT TEACHING THAT MISSIONARY WORK IS A PRIESTHOOD DUTY. This is because missionary work IS a Priesthood duty.

As long as you stick to the first ideas, you are among sympathetic spirits. As soon as you proclaim that latter thing, most of us will openly disagree with you.

[Vort]

What question are you talking about? Or I should say, which one?

You asked (albeit without using a question mark):

How do YOU know what they will or will not be held accountable for.

You then immediately answered your own question:

We ALL will be held accountable for everything we do in our lives.

[Misshalfway]

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

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

I'm afraid this is an attitude that I wonder about.

Couldn't we say this about any sin? Any deviation from the commitments we make at baptism? That we'll be judged by God and that we'll have to be accountable?

But where is the Atonement in this sentiment? Where is the hope or faith that God, in His power and wisdom, can turn any life experience to that person's good?

I'm thinking of a parabel from the NT. The parabel of the laborers in Matt 20 where the laborers are called to work in the field but some come at different times, but who receive the same wages at the end.

For the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which went out early in the morning to hire labourers into his vineyard. Let me post it.....

MATT 20 1-16

2 And when he had agreed with the labourers for a penny a day, he sent them into his vineyard.

3 And he went out about the third hour, and saw others standing idle in the marketplace,

4 And said unto them; Go ye also into the vineyard, and whatsoever is right I will give you. And they went their way.

5 Again he went out about the sixth and ninth hour, and did likewise.

6 And about the eleventh hour he went out, and found others standing idle, and saith unto them, Why stand ye here all the day idle?

7 They say unto him, Because no man hath hired us. He saith unto them, Go ye also into the vineyard; and whatsoever is right, that shall ye receive.

8 So when even was come, the lord of the vineyard saith unto his steward, Call the labourers, and give them their hire, beginning from the last unto the first.

9 And when they came that were hired about the eleventh hour, they received every man a penny.

10 But when the first came, they supposed that they should have received more; and they likewise received every man a penny.

11 And when they had received it, they murmured against the goodman of the house,

12 Saying, These last have wrought but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day.

13 But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny?

14 Take that thine is, and go thy way: I will give unto this last, even as unto thee.

15 Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good?

16 So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.

If I'm not mistaken, these scriptures are trying to teach that it doesn't matter how late in the day, those who come to Christ and serve will receive the same wages as those who were committed from the beginning.

While I do agree that teaching priesthood responsibility is important, I think we have to keep our perspective. There is always hope. Always opportunities to course correct our lives and fulfill the obligations associated with our covenants. We talk like missions are the only way to meet the obligation to share the gospel. This is so limited! What happened to "every member a missionary"? There are so very many ways the Lord uses to gather His people!! Including the ways he gathers his prospective missionaries.

Teaching people that they have somehow missed the window of mercy and that there will be some doomsday reckoning at the last day feels to me like a denial of the atonement. If people don't repent, there will be a righteous judgment. For those who repent, there is no stain....no need to fear. And isn't this our message to every living soul? That there is always hope for restitution? That we all can come back Jesus and that he'll make it all right again even if it is the eleventh hour.

Edited August 22, 2012 by Misshalfway

[Anddenex]

This is the exact kind of language that I believe is hurtful. How do YOU know what they will or will not be held accountable for. We ALL will be held accountable for everything we do in our lives. Our judgement is up to God. Only He knows our hearts and life stories. Let's just leave it to Him. And why do people insist on spinning the negative threat into it? The missing out on a blessing thing? How do you think that young man who tried but failed feels when he hears this? Perhaps his greatest blessing in life will be the counseling and treatment he receives after being sent home from the MTC. Perhaps he will have other opportunities to serve and grow here at home that would be greater than going out and struggling for two years. Tremendous blessings are bestowed by our Heavenly Father. Let's just let Him decide when, to whom and for what he will bestow those blessings.

Yes a mission can be a blessing. Mine was. My boys' missions were/are blessings. (Some missions are not blessings though. Some are just endless torture. ) NO need to emphasize so much the loss of that blessing. It only serves to hurt.

I am reminded of Nephi's words in relation to his older brethren, 1 Nephi 16: 1 -

Thou hast declared unto us hard things, more than we are able to bear.

I knew that I had spoken ahard things against the wicked, according to the truth; and the righteous have I justified

And now my brethren, if ye were righteous and were willing to hearken to the truth, and give heed unto it, that ye might awalk uprightly before God, then ye would not murmur because of the truth, and say: Thou speakest hard things against us.

You, possibly rhetorically ask,

And why do people insist on spinning the negative threat into it?

Our cannon of scripture is full of negative threats, which negative threats are grounded in truth.

It is truth, anybody who shirks their responsibility will be held accountable before God. I have found it very interesting that for the past 6 years if not more President Monson has alluded to this scripture to all brethren who have received the priesthood, D&C 107: 99 - 100,

99 Wherefore, now let every man learn his duty, and to act in the office in which he is appointed, in all diligence.

100 He that is slothful shall not be counted worthy to stand, and he that learns not his duty and shows himself not approved shall not be counted worthy to stand. Even so. Amen.

If negative threats concern you, verse 100 provides a negative threat to every priesthood holder.

Nephi provides one of the most influential negative threats to anybody who reads the Book of Mormon (2 Nephi 33: 14, emphasis added)

14 And you that will not partake of the goodness of God, and respect the words of the Jews, and also my words, and the words which shall proceed forth out of the mouth of the Lamb of God, behold, I bid you an everlasting farewell, for these words shall condemn you at the last day.

Should the Presidency remove these words from the Book of Mormon, because, in my experience, the majority of non-LDS who read these words take hurt and find them offensive and fear mongering.

I have discovered that it is the negative threats that we should pay close attention to. They provide guidance and offer important counsel. A truth which will surely happen.

I once dated a young lady who had lost her virginity before marriage. In our BYU ward, the Bishopric spoke firmly about the importance of keeping chaste, accompanied with the doctrine of negative threats. After the meeting, one-on-one, she shared with me how she was hurt by the strong language of the Bishopric.

The reality of the matter, anytime truth is spoken, and anybody has gone against this truth, it will be hard to hear, unless the individual recognizes the atonement in their lives. The negative threats are purposeful to bring people to repentance.

Anddenex's soapbox has ended.

Edited August 22, 2012 by Anddenex

[Misshalfway]

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.

I think you sound like a person who really cares about people. I appreciate that. There are times when I've needed to feel more care and less judgment. I appreciate your ability to see the struggles of the few and champion them.

[Backroads]

I'm not thinking Finrock meant anyone is being condemned for not going, or they are missing out on all blessings of adherence to the gospel. But missionaries are blessed for serving.

[Misshalfway]

I'm not thinking Finrock meant anyone is being condemned for not going, or they are missing out on all blessings of adherence to the gospel. But missionaries are blessed for serving.

Ok. I see your point.

But I'd still like to stand by mine.

I think we SHOULD teach correct principles. Fin is right that our young man need to know that it is indeed a commandment and that their are consequences for not doing the will of the Lord.

What I think I am objecting to is how we church members condition each other into doing what's "right".

It's an old tactic that has been used in religion since Satan had has way in the garden. Right after we judge, we shame people. And we use our scriptures to do it. We threaten and scare and try to knock in some sense.....all the while failing to love. My favorite guru therapist friend says...."whenever we start to judge, we stop loving." It's the same whether we judge and shame others or ourselves.

I've got a friend who is of the age to go on a mission. He isn't going just now for some serious personal reasons. He almost can't stand attending family parties because of all the pressure he feels from their judging, correcting, shaming comments. I don't know how many times he's heard "What's wrong with you?" His parents feel shame and embarrassment that their oldest isn't going on time. And sometimes they yell at him, using the scriptures even. Not many know what he is carrying. Not many know the depth of his struggle. At one point, he had to go to a family party and announce that everyone was hurting him and that they needed to back off. He then asked for their patience and support. You know what happened next? Lot's of silence. They couldn't offer the support. They could only move away. His parents asked him to move out. He now lives with his grandparents.

Now....I'm not condemning these parents. They are still trying to figure things out. Still loving their son the best way they know how.

But I think that the point of this thread is to highlight how we react when people don't do what they are "suppose to do".

I think there is something to be said for examining our own attitudes towards these people and amending the way we treat them and how we chose to help.

[carlimac]

I'm not thinking Finrock meant anyone is being condemned for not going, or they are missing out on all blessings of adherence to the gospel. But missionaries are blessed for serving.

Then say it that way. "Missionaries are blessed for serving." Period. Not this big heavy- "They'll be missing out on the blessings if they don't go." See the difference?

[carlimac]

I think you sound like a person who really cares about people. I appreciate that. There are times when I've needed to feel more care and less judgment. I appreciate your ability to see the struggles of the few and champion them.

Well thank you. I suppose I'm sensitive to this issue because my mother was an example of showing empathy for the underdog. I took a "different" path myself for awhile, stuggled with some big issues and didn't fit the mold. I know how it feels to know for certain that people are gossiping and avoiding rather than loving.

This one young man is the son of my best friend. He's been practically suicidal since being sent home. It's agonizing for his parents to watch him suffer. Some of the stuff I've read on this thread would send him into a tailspin. Honestly. Where is the compassion? These "exceptions" are just brushed under the rug with some of the dogmatic attitudes I've seen here.

We have another young man in our ward who has some really strange form of autism or something. Not sure what. He knows enough to know he is different but still believes he can follow the 'normal" path. He has a burning testimony. He talks about going on a mission. He wants desperately to do the right thing. We'll see what happens in the next year but I highly doubt he'll be able to go on a traditional mission.

I have a nephew who ended his mission after about 4 months in the field due to depression. Luckily, his mother also came home early from her mission as a young woman for the same reason so he has her full support. His younger brother has Asperger's Syndrome. He, too wants to serve a mission. It will probably be a Deseret Industries type of mission. He is bright enough to know the gospel but is socially inadequate to go out and live on his own and teach strangers.

Two cousins came home early for medical reasons. One nephew didn't go at all (drug abuse). I suppose he deserved to feel guilty for not going on a mission and for lots of things he did wrong, but he doesn't. He's not active anymore.

I just think there is too much we don't know about people. There are so many hurting hearts- many who would love to do it the cookie cutter way if they could. To make blanket statements about Priesthood duty and commandments without softening the message a little is to ignore reality and inflict more pain on the already suffering.

[Sunnysprite]

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

Spent a few weeks in Indiana, and at a Fireside a Bishop was talking about getting drafted for Vietnam. It was about then that his call to go on a mission came through. He went on the Mission.

[bytor2112]

BUT WE DO NOT AGREE THAT CHURCH LEADERS SHOULD QUIT TEACHING THAT MISSIONARY WORK IS A PRIESTHOOD DUTY. This is because missionary work IS a Priesthood duty.

So, let me get this straight....you are saying that Missionary service is a Priesthood duty?

[Sicily510]

As Latter-day Saints we are to visit and help the sick, the poor and the elderly it's asked of us once we have decided to be Saints we are choosing to live like Heavenly Father's sons and daughters live like Jesus Christ. As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of these Latter-day Saints I know I have my role and duties as member to do good deeds, charity, and with my faith and consistency in prayer, reading the scriptures, going to church I will be able to perform such duties. It's okay to challenge youths to serve Heavenly Father before their own personal goals, it's old traditions to pursue our own happiness. Once one understands how to serve others will they truly find unselfish happiness, and become pure in heart.

[Anddenex]

The conversation, as addressed by the OP, has only focused on one side of the coin. The words which this Mission President shared, maybe hurtful to some in the audience.

What about he other side of the coin? What about the young 18 year old, who is currently thinking upon a mission, and thinking that he may not go. He/She listens to this talk, and feels the spirit confirming the need to go.

Where others may not have found joy in this Mission Presidents words, others in the audience may have received the words they needed to hear.

The coin flips both ways.

[carlimac]

I think there are only about two of you who really get where I'm coming from. I did toss out the idea of missionary work being voluntary for young people as it is for seniors. It was really only a hypothetical idea. And I can see, not a very good one. Missions are a great thing (generally speaking) and yes, it's great if a fence sitter is somehow motivated to jump to the right side by these pulpit pounding talks.

But my focus on this problem is very narrow. Please read back over my last few posts before going off on a rant about Priesthood duties and such. That's not the issue. The thing that is bugging me is that we tend to automatically subconsciously label someone who is a good kid as having worthiness problems if they don't go on a mission by the time they are 19 1/2. Black and white statements from the pulpit like "Every young man should go on a mission" without any wiggle room for exceptions, perpetuate that tendency. And the stink-eye, shifty looks as well as negative and unwelcoming vibes these young guys might pick up on from the most rigid and dogged members of the ward could well drive them away completely.

And ...I have been vindicated on the missing the funeral thing. In the Ensign that came today: "Senior missionaries may return home for critical family events (for up to 10 days) at their own expense."

Edited August 23, 2012 by carlimac

[Sunnysprite]

I think there are only about two of you who really get where I'm coming from. I did toss out the idea of missionary work being voluntary for young people as it is for seniors. It was really only a hypothetical idea. And I can see, not a very good one. Missions are a great thing (generally speaking) and yes, it's great if a fence sitter is somehow motivated to jump to the right side by these pulpit pounding talks.

But my focus on this problem is very narrow. Please read back over my last few posts before going off on a rant about Priesthood duties and such. That's not the issue. The thing that is bugging me is that we tend to automatically subconsciously label someone who is a good kid as having worthiness problems if they don't go on a mission by the time they are 19 1/2. Black and white statements from the pulpit like "Every young man should go on a mission" without any wiggle room for exceptions, perpetuate that tendency. And the stink-eye, shifty looks as well as negative and unwelcoming vibes these young guys might pick up on from the most rigid and dogged members of the ward could well drive them away completely.

And ...I have been vindicated on the missing the funeral thing. In the Ensign that came today: "Senior missionaries may return home for critical family events (for up to 10 days) at their own expense."

I'm not gonna chase this whole thing down, but I would like to make a few observations. I think it is undeniable that Missionary service grows children up. Two years of enduring rejection and pain for men. and 18 months for women teaches skills that will be of life long use. To the young it may seem like to much of a sacrifice because they are impatient and immature.

From what I can see, there is "wiggle" room, but if you don't want to go, pray about it.

Have a good time.

[Misshalfway]

I think there are only about two of you who really get where I'm coming from. I did toss out the idea of missionary work being voluntary for young people as it is for seniors. It was really only a hypothetical idea. And I can see, not a very good one. Missions are a great thing (generally speaking) and yes, it's great if a fence sitter is somehow motivated to jump to the right side by these pulpit pounding talks.

But my focus on this problem is very narrow. Please read back over my last few posts before going off on a rant about Priesthood duties and such. That's not the issue. The thing that is bugging me is that we tend to automatically subconsciously label someone who is a good kid as having worthiness problems if they don't go on a mission by the time they are 19 1/2. Black and white statements from the pulpit like "Every young man should go on a mission" without any wiggle room for exceptions, perpetuate that tendency. And the stink-eye, shifty looks as well as negative and unwelcoming vibes these young guys might pick up on from the most rigid and dogged members of the ward could well drive them away completely.

And ...I have been vindicated on the missing the funeral thing. In the Ensign that came today: "Senior missionaries may return home for critical family events (for up to 10 days) at their own expense."

It's always nice when common sense comes out in an official document. At least it seems to be the only thing that calms unnecessary zealousness.

[pam]

I

And ...I have been vindicated on the missing the funeral thing. In the Ensign that came today: "Senior missionaries may return home for critical family events (for up to 10 days) at their own expense."

Really how have you been vindicated? No one here said that senior missionaries can't return home. Most have said that senior missionaries have the choice to and some have chosen not to. Even young Elder and Sister missionaries have had that choice under certain circumstances.

It's been that policy for as long as I can remember.

[carlimac]

Really how have you been vindicated? No one here said that senior missionaries can't return home. Most have said that senior missionaries have the choice to and some have chosen not to. Even young Elder and Sister missionaries have had that choice under certain circumstances.

It's been that policy for as long as I can remember.

Does it bother you that I feel vindicated? Maybe validated is a better word.

[Backroads]

But I think that the point of this thread is to highlight how we react when people don't do what they are "suppose to do".

I think there is something to be said for examining our own attitudes towards these people and amending the way we treat them and how we chose to help.

And yet, we have people insisting that by encouraging missions for the general youth, we are condemning and hurting those who don't serve.

Apparently, not judging others isn't good enough. Standing by and supporting all our brothers and sisters in the gospel isn't good enough.

The discussion keeps coming back to the idea that the mission commandment is hurtful and harmful. Because apparently, as long as that commandment exists, we are hurting those who aren't going for whatever reason.

I personally don't have the energy to half-heartedly support a priesthood commandment and champion those who didn't go on a mission.

So I'm very sorry if supporting and loving everyone isn't good enough, but it's really all I can do.

(MissHalfway, this is in no way directed at you. A rant just came out).

[Backroads]

The thing that is bugging me is that we tend to automatically subconsciously label someone who is a good kid as having worthiness problems if they don't go on a mission by the time they are 19 1/2. Black and white statements from the pulpit like "Every young man should go on a mission" without any wiggle room for exceptions, perpetuate that tendency.

Couple of things:

Do you really have the right and ability to state everyone subconsciously labels all these non-missionaries? I agree, judgement is a problem, but you also can't go around pointing fingers and insisting we all hate non-missionaries or even silently and subconciously judge them. Because if you start a crusade based on what you think people might be thinking, you really don't have a leg to stand upon.

How do we rephrase the commandment without making it sound like a young man doesn't have to serve a mission if he simply doesn't want to?