Backroads Posted August 20, 2012 Report Posted August 20, 2012 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,FinrockThis was well-said, Finrock. I originally read this thread before heading to work, and I thought more about it on the way.Yes, we all have stories of Brother So-n-So who did not serve a mission and has an excellent reason why. I do not argue with this.This speaker may have tried to dress up his talk with so-called inspirational stories of missionary zeal we may or may not agree with. But his point was clear: All worthy pristhood holders ought to serve a mission. Is anyone here going to argue with that statement? I would say many of us would defend our particular Brother So-n-So who we felt had a very good reason for not serving, but that's an entirely different ballgame than NOT encourageing young men to serve missions. I would daresay that worthy men serving missions as part of their priesthood duty is a COMMANDMENT... that might have some exceptions every now and then.When we want to discourage people from saying "All young men should serve a mission" are we worried more about the gospel or are we worried more about making people feel better about themselves?
MarginOfError Posted August 20, 2012 Report Posted August 20, 2012 This was well-said, Finrock. I originally read this thread before heading to work, and I thought more about it on the way.Yes, we all have stories of Brother So-n-So who did not serve a mission and has an excellent reason why. I do not argue with this.This speaker may have tried to dress up his talk with so-called inspirational stories of missionary zeal we may or may not agree with. But his point was clear: All worthy pristhood holders ought to serve a mission. Is anyone here going to argue with that statement? I would say many of us would defend our particular Brother So-n-So who we felt had a very good reason for not serving, but that's an entirely different ballgame than NOT encourageing young men to serve missions. I would daresay that worthy men serving missions as part of their priesthood duty is a COMMANDMENT... that might have some exceptions every now and then.When we want to discourage people from saying "All young men should serve a mission" are we worried more about the gospel or are we worried more about making people feel better about themselves?Still, the sentiment that you and Finrock are trying to convey is "Every young man should prepare himself to serve a mission." This is quite a different statement than "Every young man needs to serve a mission."Whether we like it or not, humans are very susceptible to the power of words. A little change in wording can make a huge difference in how a message is received and the impact it has on the receiver.
Backroads Posted August 20, 2012 Report Posted August 20, 2012 Still, the sentiment that you and Finrock are trying to convey is "Every young man should prepare himself to serve a mission." This is quite a different statement than "Every young man needs to serve a mission."Whether we like it or not, humans are very susceptible to the power of words. A little change in wording can make a huge difference in how a message is received and the impact it has on the receiver.No, I really do believe that every young man needs to serve a mission and therefore should prepare himself. If we were to say "Every young man should prepare himself to serve a mission", that suggests to me, prepare yourself, but when the times comes, only go if you feel like it because it's okay, you're still worthy, but if you would rather do somethign else, go for it.The young men of the Church are commanded to serve a mission. That sounds like "need" to me.Would telling young men to prepare to serve a mission encourage them to serve a mission anymore than stressing their priesthood duty?
Finrock Posted August 20, 2012 Report Posted August 20, 2012 Still, the sentiment that you and Finrock are trying to convey is "Every young man should prepare himself to serve a mission." This is quite a different statement than "Every young man needs to serve a mission."Whether we like it or not, humans are very susceptible to the power of words. A little change in wording can make a huge difference in how a message is received and the impact it has on the receiver.Every priesthood holder is obligated by commandment and covenant to serve a mission. If a priesthood holder is going to be true to their covenant then they need to serve a mission. The statements are equivalent in their meaning. They all end in the same logical conclusion. The priesthood obligates us to serve a full-time mission. To stay true to this covenant, we need to serve a mission. Saying it a different way provides no different obligation or meaning. We should prepare to serve a mission because we are morally obligated to do so by covenant. "Should" do something means that it is something that we must do in order to stay morally and ethically true. If we should/ought to do something it isn't something that we can simply reject without being accountable for our inaction. It equates to needing to act in order to maitain our moral standing.Regards,Finrock
Backroads Posted August 20, 2012 Report Posted August 20, 2012 Okay, maybe I'm just confused on this thread. What message do we want to convey to the young men of the Church? What are we trying to tell them about missions?
Guest Posted August 20, 2012 Report Posted August 20, 2012 In my LDS view - the 2-year mission from when you are 19-25 (boys) is not the only mission you can do. Yes, you need to serve a mission - I can get behind that. As long as the mission president will get behind my opinion that the 2-year mission is not the end-all be-all of missionary service.
Backroads Posted August 20, 2012 Report Posted August 20, 2012 In my LDS view - the 2-year mission from when you are 19-25 (boys) is not the only mission you can do.But what does that mean? Does it mean we lay out before the 19-25 year-old-boys different options besides the standard LDS mission and let them pick?
NeuroTypical Posted August 20, 2012 Report Posted August 20, 2012 (edited) 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.Every priesthood holder is obligated to serve a mission. That is gospel truth.Of course that is most absolutely NOT the gospel truth. For example, converts who showed up to the party older than missionary age are not obligated. 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.Agreed. I guess here in my 40's, I fall into the category of a person who did not fulfill his obligation to go on a mission when it was time. Would you care to tell me exactly what you think this means for me, my family, or those I associate with? Edited August 20, 2012 by Loudmouth_Mormon
Backroads Posted August 20, 2012 Report Posted August 20, 2012 But we aren't talking about converts or young men who are medically unable to serve a mission. We're talking about young men of the correct age who are already in the Church. Why shouldn't they be encouraged and yes, even commanded, to serve missions if they are worthy and able? And why do the ones who choose not to serve get to throw such a fuss over it?
Backroads Posted August 20, 2012 Report Posted August 20, 2012 I guess here in my 40's, I fall into the category of a person who did not fulfill his obligation to go on a mission when it was time. Would you care to tell me exactly what you think this means for me, my family, or those I associate with?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?I think that's all that matters.From what I know of you in our online relationship, you seem to be a worthy and committed priesthood holder who probably gives your family and associates the best you can give them.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.
MarginOfError Posted August 20, 2012 Report Posted August 20, 2012 But we aren't talking about converts or young men who are medically unable to serve a mission.We're talking about young men of the correct age who are already in the Church. Why shouldn't they be encouraged and yes, even commanded, to serve missions if they are worthy and able?Because some of them are put into positions where they have to choose between two righteous decisions. For example, serving a mission or staying home to care for a ill parent. The attitude we convey when we say things like "Every young man needs to serve a mission" spills over into the attitudes we convey when we do things like tell young women that they should only marry returned missionaries. When we fail to recognize the shades of gray in the world, we inadvertently (or perhaps deliberately, who knows) set up a flawed measuring stick by which people compare and judge themselves and each other. Certainly we can find a way to encourage young men to prepare for and serve missions without making it sound like they are in eternal peril if they are unable to serve.
Backroads Posted August 20, 2012 Report Posted August 20, 2012 (edited) I think that's a fair way to go. But I also want to avoid the laundry list of reasons not to go. How do we avoid the other end of the spectrum? That a young man with no righteous reason not serve gets to demand the same as a young man who made a righteous choice? 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. While I know and respect men who have chosen not to serve missions in order to other worthy and necessary things, I don't think the amount of these young men is anywhere comparable to the number of young men who have nothing holding them back from serving a mission. The former group of young men is a minority. Yet we have so many young men choosing not to serve missions because it isn't conveninet for them, or it won't be fun, or, or, or. The young men who chose to make the other righteous should be commended for their mission alternative and they should never be condemned. No doubt it has hard for many of them to make the choice. But why should we throw out the thought that serving a mission isn't important? I know that isn't what you are saying at all, but I do fear that if we downplay the importance of serving a mission in order to appease those who made another righteous choice over serving a mission or even those who just didn't feel like going, the requirement for worthy and able young men to serve is going to be less of a requirment and more of a friendly suggestion. Edited August 20, 2012 by Backroads
Guest Posted August 20, 2012 Report Posted August 20, 2012 But what does that mean? Does it mean we lay out before the 19-25 year-old-boys different options besides the standard LDS mission and let them pick?No, we give them the principle of worthiness, the principle of missionary work, and then let them govern themselves.
Misshalfway Posted August 20, 2012 Report Posted August 20, 2012 Still, the sentiment that you and Finrock are trying to convey is "Every young man should prepare himself to serve a mission." This is quite a different statement than "Every young man needs to serve a mission."Whether we like it or not, humans are very susceptible to the power of words. A little change in wording can make a huge difference in how a message is received and the impact it has on the receiver.I wasn't bothered by the word "need". I was bothered by the way the speaker seemed to measure valiance in missionary service in such a limited and narrow way.I appreciate how you've stated your comments. I agree that our words are powerfully influential. Especially with the way we are taught to follow and sustain our leaders with exactness. I think there is a responsibility for all of us to watch our grand sweeping statements. I think there is an added responsibility when that person holds a position of leadership. People believe what they are told in literal ways.Like my SP (referencing one of my earlier threads) who taught for years that expired temple recommends disqualified people from going to heaven regardless of the state of their hearts. I know his intent was to get people to stay worthy and to go to the temple. But he could really do some damage by teaching things this way.
Finrock Posted August 20, 2012 Report Posted August 20, 2012 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.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
Vort Posted August 20, 2012 Report Posted August 20, 2012 Because some of them are put into positions where they have to choose between two righteous decisions. For example, serving a mission or staying home to care for a ill parent.LM is one in a hundred, or more likely one in a thousand. Such rare individual cases are easily dealt with and fall under the wording "honorably excused".Look, if someone does not want to serve a mission, it's no skin off my nose. I'm not going to stay up at night about it, and I'm not going to shun him at Church meetings. I'm not even going to think badly of him on a personal level, because it's not my problem.But let's not pretend that every young man, or even a significant portion of them, faces the gut-wrenching decision of either fulfilling his Priesthood duty to serve a mission or take care of other, equally important or pressing, matters, such as caring for an ailing parent. We all know that in the vast majority of cases, the choice is between serving a mission or doing other things that you think will be more pleasant, such as go to school, keep dating your girlfriend, or get a professional job and start making money. Either that or the necessity to confess your membership-threatening sins to the bishop. In the vast majority of cases, it's a question of selfishness vs. selflessness, not of one duty vs. another duty.
MarginOfError Posted August 20, 2012 Report Posted August 20, 2012 I think that's a fair way to go. But I also want to avoid the laundry list of reasons not to go.There shouldn't be a list. It should be a decision made by each young man in consultation with his bishop and with guidance from his parents.How do we avoid the other end of the spectrum? That a young man with no righteous reason not serve gets to demand the same as a young man who made a righteous choice?I don't understand. What's being demanded.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 think the serious discussion is "Prepare yourself to serve a mission." Then you talk about things like scripture study, seminary/institute, righteous living, compassion, charity, etc and get them to adopt those principles into their lives. If you can effectively and consistently get a young man to feel the Spirit, 95%* of the time he'll have a desire to serve.*I made up that number, but I suspect it's pretty high.
MarginOfError Posted August 20, 2012 Report Posted August 20, 2012 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,FinrockI'm not sure "we" assume this as much as you think, and I certainly don't think the body of Church membership assumes this everytime they listen to talk.
Finrock Posted August 20, 2012 Report Posted August 20, 2012 I'm not sure "we" assume this as much as you think, and I certainly don't think the body of Church membership assumes this everytime they listen to talk.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
Backroads Posted August 20, 2012 Report Posted August 20, 2012 (edited) I don't understand. What's being demanded.Apologies for a bad unfinished sentence.I've seen young men who, in their own words, didn't feel like serving a mission. Now, many of these young men are active in the gospel, but when the subject of to-serve-or-not-to-serve, they try to put themselves on the same level of righteousness as those who had to make the tough decision to serve a mission or to assist with a family situation. They want to avoid the fact they purposely chose to avoid a commandment and still considered righteous without repenting. Edited August 20, 2012 by Backroads
carlimac Posted August 20, 2012 Author Report Posted August 20, 2012 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.You're right. We don't know the circumstances of the daughter-in-law dying because we weren't told what they were. Many details of the story that we weren't made aware of could have affected their decision. Perhaps they didn't have a very close relationship with the son or didn't really like the DIL, or maybe she had something terminal and had been expected to die any time anyway, or the parents had some really miraculous spiritual prompting that told them that getting to their mission immediately was imperative or someone would miss the chance in this life to hear the gospel. Who knows? We were only told that they chose to go on their mission rather than go support their son. They were at a crossroads, a natural break in the mission action and had a choice that most missionaries don't have. Their decision was held up and praised. 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? Not much apparently. See now I'm getting mad about it. I would have been heartbroken if my parents had made the same decision. As it was, in my own life, my parent were on their mission when my first child was born. I didn't expect them to come home for it. I dearly missed the nurturing my mother could have offered. But we got along. But a birth is different than a sudden death. In any case, the story obviously had the opposite of the desired effect on me.
Guest Posted August 20, 2012 Report Posted August 20, 2012 In the vast majority of cases, it's a question of selfishness vs. selflessness, not of one duty vs. another duty.In my limited experience, there's a 3rd part - the need to find the truth of the gospel. Just because you turned 19 doesn't automatically make it that you can honestly go up to the pulpit and declare that you know the Church is true, let alone proselyte door-to-door about it. It's not a matter of selfishness or selflessness or being lazy all your life and not read the scriptures enough or not prayed enough, etc. Each person have their own unique journey to finding the path to God's Kingdom.
Vort Posted August 20, 2012 Report Posted August 20, 2012 In my limited experience, there's a 3rd part - the need to find the truth of the gospel. Just because you turned 19 doesn't automatically make it that you can honestly go up to the pulpit and declare that you know the Church is true.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.
Backroads Posted August 20, 2012 Report Posted August 20, 2012 In any case, the story obviously had the opposite of the desired effect on me.Agreed. It's an odd, odd story that I don't find inspiring.
carlimac Posted August 20, 2012 Author Report Posted August 20, 2012 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.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.
Recommended Posts