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

[pam]

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

Only in that it came across as "I told you so." Especially when no one was arguing the point about couple missionaries and their ability to make a choice in going home.

[Vort]

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.

Of what are you speaking? I witnessed no unnecessary zealousness in this thread.

[carlimac]

Only in that it came across as "I told you so." Especially when no one was arguing the point about couple missionaries and their ability to make a choice in going home.

I see what you mean. There actually were a couple who disagreed with me on the funeral thing. But aside from that, the article in the Ensign validates my own feelings for me. I was asking it on this forum just to gather opinions, but mostly asking myself, "Was I way out of line to be sickened by that example given by a mission president? Am I that faithless? Does Heavenly Father still love me even though I would have chosen differently?"

So it's nice to know at least that my line of thinking -that I personally would have rushed to the aid of my son in that circumstance, is OK and valid. That I still would have the approval of my Heavenly Father.

In the Ensign it does say that policy is a "change" . I don't really know what the policy was before. I do know my own parents left the MTC a couple times to come home (to Salt Lake) before they left the country. But that was 25 years ago.

[carlimac]

Of what are you speaking? I witnessed no unnecessary zealousness in this thread.

I understood her to be referring to missing a funeral of a daughter-in-law to rush into missionary work.

[Guest]

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).

Well said, Backroads.

See, this going on a full-time mission thing is one of those duties that are not a blanket "do it this way" for everybody. It's different from something like - wearing garments. Because - there's only one way to wear garments. And every Melchizedek Priest gets to wear them. Yes, there are people that can't wear them because of allergies or whatever. But, there's no "alternative to wearing garments". You can't get Hanes jockeys, consecrate it as garments, and then wear them.

Fulfilling your obligation as a full-time missionary at 19-25 years of age is not the same. Yes, it is an obligation, but there are valid exceptions and so many other ways to fulfill the missionary obligation. President Monson did not need to be "dismissed from missionary service" to decide to join the military instead. But, we know from his personal history that even if he did not serve the 2 year mission, he fulfilled that missionary obligation twenty times over serving as a Mission President and his lifetime of service.

I wanted to quote Finrock's earlier post addressed to me but it got buried deep in previous pages I can't find it in my quick skimming... but basically, he said he doesn't understand my reference to his approach as setting the goal and then working backwards adding exceptions.

You can approach this obligation 2 ways. But before I expound on that - let me just be clear that I have no problem with the way the Mission President approached it. I just don't use that same approach in teaching my boys. The 2 ways are - 1.) emphasis is on being worthy for missionary service, 2.) emphasis on the goal of serving the full-time mission.

According to Finrock - the two are one process, not separate. Yes, it is one process - but it is several layers to the process. If this was a project, there are steps to achieving the project and then there's the final product.

My approach is to emphasize the preparation putting the 2-year mission as a milestone. Doing it this way - there is no exception. Mental illness, physical disability, longer time in building a testimony - they are not excepted. There's one way and that is Prepare for a mission. The pressure is heavy on the preparation and not on reaching the milestone. The milestone is treated as a natural progression to the preparation.

I see the 2nd approach of teaching from the standpoint of going on a full-time mission as emphasizing a "final product" and then working backwards to teach the preparation leading to that goal. Because you are working from the goal, then you get to put in exceptions so that those who do not make that goal for valid reasons don't beat themselves up over it.

Emphasizing the preparation puts the Success marker on the achievement of becoming worthy to serve a mission - whatever mission. Full-time mission, Mission President, everyday mission, special missions, senior mission... etc. etc. etc. The process doesn't end just because you became a Return Missionary. It's a lifetime process.

Emphasizing the goal of going on a full-time mission puts the Success marker on completing the 2 year mission. And then you're done. Regardless of whether you prepared yourself properly for it or not, or whether you learned anything out of it or not, or whether you grew spiritually or not, or even that you did anything with that knowledge after you came home. And when you're done, then you're not working on it anymore. It's finished. You'll need to set another goal to do more.

I prefer the Success Marker on being worthy to serve a mission. That's what I'm teaching my children. It's a lifetime process, not just a - until you come back from a full-time mission thing.

I hope this makes my position a little clearer.

Edited August 23, 2012 by anatess

[carlimac]

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).

This (bolded) is an overstatement!

After talking to my husband about this he found a statement from a Priesthood session that adds on to the "commandment" in a perfect way. It's what I wish we would hear more often. If young men knew there were options, the strugglers maybe wouldn't be so gun-shy about serving. And there would be fewer who actually feel like "damaged goods" or "sinners" because they aren't up to the traditional mission.

"President Monson spoke of “every worthy, able young man [preparing] to serve a mission.” On occasion, because of health or other reasons, one might not be able to serve. You will know your ability to serve as you speak with your parents and your bishop. Should this be your situation, please do not feel less important in the noble commission before you. The Lord is very generous to those who love Him, and He will open other doors for you."

April General Conference 2011 - Neil L. Andersen

[estradling75]

Saying there is problem with making the statement that every young man 'needs' to serve a mission... is like saying there is a problem saying that everyone 'needs' to obey the Law of Chasity, and the Word of Wisdom. People who have had a problem with those can be equally hurt by equally forceful declarations of those two commandments as young men can be hurt by declarations of missionary service.

The problem isn't with the pricking of the hearts to repentance.

The problem is that to many people think they have the right to know, why? They see a situation that they think is 'wrong' and so they butt in, thinking that with just a few 'magic' words they can 'fix' it and make everything alright again. In most cases people are coming out of no where to correct the young mans faults. And while they wrap themselves up in the 'best of intentions,' the young man only sees 'self righteous' strangers who couldn't be bothered with him until they start picking at his flaws. Understanding this it is not hard to see why he would respond poorly. If you want to help a young man (or anyone struggling with sin for that matter) you need to spend more time listening to them and less time preaching at them.

[Leah]

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

Why not simply answer her question? She merely asked for clarification. I also did not understand your statement.

[Vort]

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.

Serving a full-time mission is the natural and unique result of doing one's Priesthood duty for 95% or more of our young men. This is how all teaching in the Church is done: We teach to the majority, especially to the large majority, then counsel the minority separately. Why do you have such difficulty with this?

I remember spending seemingly my entire youth watching a filmstrip or video about a river rafting trip and how people need to be chaste. It became a running joke among the youth -- any time we had an activity, we were going to watch the river rafting trip thing. What never really occurred to me in my callow youthfulness was that maybe they kept showing that stupid river rafting film because it was needed. Maybe I didn't need it -- maybe it didn't really apply to me or to my situation -- but that didn't mean that lots of others didn't need it. Maybe someone was kept from compromising his or her chastity because we watched that "stupid" filmstrip so many times. Am I really so selfish as to begrudge the help my brother or sister needs just because I don't find it sufficiently entertaining?

I think something similar is at play here. For the 95% or more, they need to hear that it's their duty and know it's part of the expectation of the Priesthood. That may even involve mild hyperbole, such as "EVERY young man should serve a full-time mission!" Enough has been said that the <5% to whom that does not apply should know it doesn't apply. I understand that it may be prickly to hear such things, and I sympathize with the young man who, through no fault of his own, cannot serve a full-time mission and yet hears such things. But I also think it's disloyal and destructive to condemn those men and women who are leading us because they use such occasional hyperbole.

Edited August 23, 2012 by Vort

[carlimac]

Why not simply answer her question? She merely asked for clarification. I also did not understand your statement.

I did. Keep reading.

[carlimac]

Saying there is problem with making the statement that every young man 'needs' to serve a mission... is like saying there is a problem saying that everyone 'needs' to obey the Law of Chasity, and the Word of Wisdom. People who have had a problem with those can be equally hurt by equally forceful declarations of those two commandments as young men can be hurt by declarations of missionary service.

The problem isn't with the pricking of the hearts to repentance.

The problem is that to many people think they have the right to know, why? They see a situation that they think is 'wrong' and so they butt in, thinking that with just a few 'magic' words they can 'fix' it and make everything alright again. In most cases people are coming out of no where to correct the young mans faults. And while they wrap themselves up in the 'best of intentions,' the young man only sees 'self righteous' strangers who couldn't be bothered with him until they start picking at his flaws. Understanding this it is not hard to see why he would respond poorly. If you want to help a young man (or anyone struggling with sin for that matter) you need to spend more time listening to them and less time preaching at them.

I think you, too, have missed the point. Sigh! Oh well. I've made my point the best I can. Refer to Neil Andersen's statement I quoted above.

[Vort]

I understood her to be referring to missing a funeral of a daughter-in-law to rush into missionary work.

I understand. I happen to agree that it was not a very good example; seems almost heartless to me. But other people are doubtless inspired by the idea that some couple might miss their own daughter-in-law's funeral and the chance to comfort and support their bereaved son because they had something else of supreme importance to attend to. Like Elder Perry's nail-straightening example I referenced earlier (in this thread or another), it doesn't really work for me, but if it works for others, wonderful.

[carlimac]

But everyone has already agreed with you on that point. So why do you continue to argue it as if someone is disagreeing?

Serving a full-time mission is the natural and unique result of doing one's Priesthood duty for 95% or more of our young men. This is how all teaching in the Church is done: We teach to the majority, especially to the large majority, then counsel the minority separately. Why do you have such difficulty with this?

I remember spending seemingly my entire youth watching a filmstrip or video about a river rafting trip and how people need to be chaste. It became a running joke among the youth -- any time we had an activity, we were going to watch the river rafting trip thing. What never really occurred to me in my callow youthfulness was that maybe they kept showing that stupid river rafting film because it was needed. Maybe I didn't need it -- maybe it didn't really apply to me or to my situation -- but that didn't mean that lots of others didn't need it. Maybe someone was kept from compromising his or her chastity because we watched that "stupid" filmstrip so many times. Am I really so selfish as to begrudge the help my brother or sister needs just because I don't find it sufficiently entertaining?

I think something similar is at play here. For the 95% or more, they need to hear that it's their duty and know it's part of the expectation of the Priesthood. That may even involve mild hyperbole, such as "EVERY young man should serve a full-time mission!" Enough has been said that the <5% to whom that does not apply should know it doesn't apply. I understand that it may be prickly to hear such things, and I sympathize with the young man who, through no fault of his own, cannot serve a full-time mission and yet hears such things. But I also think it's disloyal and destructive to condemn those men and women who are leading us because they use such occasional hyperbole.

I don't think anyone disagreed with you about that.

I'm about to go to all caps here. Yes, some did disagree with me. Blatantly. For the last time. I don't object to the commandment. I object with not offering other alternatives on a regular basis. One reason we lose people in this Church is because of the one size fits all approach given too often from the pulpit. God didn't make us all clones. He gave us different talents and gifts to be used in different ways. Like anatess said, with some commandments there IS only one way to fulfill them. But with many, there is more than one way. The alternatives need to be highlighted, point out, spoken of with love from the pulpit.

I think 95% of members understand the inuendos and subtleties- all the unsaid stuff about exceptions with commandments like going on a mission. But 5% (wild guess at the numbers here) don't. They hear the commandment and freak out knowing there is no way they can keep it in the traditional and most common way. And the results aren't pretty.

[estradling75]

I think you, too, have missed the point. Sigh! Oh well. I've made my point the best I can. Refer to Neil Andersen's statement I quoted above.

Right because this thread is all about you and your opinions... And no one else can have one without challenging you personally.

[Backroads]

This (bolded) is an overstatement!

After talking to my husband about this he found a statement from a Priesthood session that adds on to the "commandment" in a perfect way. It's what I wish we would hear more often. If young men knew there were options, the strugglers maybe wouldn't be so gun-shy about serving. And there would be fewer who actually feel like "damaged goods" or "sinners" because they aren't up to the traditional mission.

"President Monson spoke of “every worthy, able young man [preparing] to serve a mission.” On occasion, because of health or other reasons, one might not be able to serve. You will know your ability to serve as you speak with your parents and your bishop. Should this be your situation, please do not feel less important in the noble commission before you. The Lord is very generous to those who love Him, and He will open other doors for you."

April General Conference 2011 - Neil L. Andersen

I find that to be an excellent quote.

However, your posts have also mentioned young men who didn't feel they needed to go on a mission, couldn't bring themsleves to getting around to it. I do not believe those young men fall in the category the quote mentions.

[Finrock]

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

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?

.....

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.

Of course you are right Misshalfway! I know about the atonement and its all wrapped up in this conversation. All truth is circumscribed in to one great whole. I am focusing on a particular point, but not at the exclusion of other truths.

I suppose I'm not use to having to explicitly acknowledge every aspect of the gospel when I'm trying to focus on one point. I simply don't have the skill and I don't know how to communicate in a way where each time I focus on one point I'm able to successfully pull all other truths in to the conversation and then focus on them, while at the same time having an intelligent conversation that isn't all over the place.

But, you are preaching to the choir. Please understand that because I point out that serving a full-time mission when you are 19-25 is a commandment and is a priesthood obligation does not mean that I am denying the power of the atonement. What I am saying is that breaking a commandment is breaking a commandment. When we break any commandment we must account for that. We make an accounting for it by either repenting and applying the atonement or by persisting in a non-repentent state until the last day, when we make an accounting for it then. But, that is a truth.

Of course people can repent. Of course people can move on from past mistakes. Of course you have other opportunities to serve. Of course God is merciful and kind. Of course we should treat each other with respect. Of course we should not gossip. Of course we should be gentle, loving, empathetic, kind, helpful, merciful, and just.

When I say we need to teach the young men that they have a priesthood obligation to serve missions of course I mean that it should be done in a way that is best for those you are teaching; and what is best for those you are teaching can vary and likely you will need to depend on the dictates of the Spirit.

None of this changes the fact that serving a full-time mission is a commandment to those who are 19-25 and when something is truth, we need to teach it. Any suggestion that we don't teach a truth is misguided and I am pointing that out. Any other issues, such as we need to teach it with compassion, etc., I don't have any issues with. Although I think a more accurate summary of how we should teach is simply to state that we need to teach any principle, including missionary principles, following the dictates of the Spirit (which sometimes includes using harsh and potentially offending language).

Regards,

Finrock

[carlimac]

Right because this thread is all about you and your opinions... And no one else can have one without challenging you personally.

Yes, We all love to be right don't we.

Actually when someone is quoting me and answering to me directly, I try to restate my opinion in another way so they can hopefully understand. If someone is directing their post to me, yes, it is about my opinion.

You didn't quote me, so you weren't talking to me. That's obvious now. I apologize if you took offense. But since I'm now talking to you directly, I disagree with your post. Keeping the word of wisdom and the law of chastity are different. There isnt' any wiggle room with those imperatives. If someone feels guilty when those commandments are preached from the pulpit, the guilt is well deserved and hit the mark. But then I try pretty hard not to judge. We all make mistakes. Only God can be the judge, even with those commandments.

But missionary service is a different kind of commandment. It has such a wide range of applications. The truth is, not every young man is called on a mission. And I would just bet that some of those who don't go (some who never recieve that fat letter in the mail) will end up in the front row of the celestial kingdom.

I think this poor horse deserves to be laid to rest.

[Backroads]

Poor horse.

[carlimac]

I find that to be an excellent quote.

However, your posts have also mentioned young men who didn't feel they needed to go on a mission, couldn't bring themsleves to getting around to it. I do not believe those young men fall in the category the quote mentions.

The only problem with condemning the ones that don't have an obvious handicap is that perhaps they really DO have one that is kept from the public. And since we aren't their bishop, or their mother or father, we should probably just keep ourselves from categorizing them. Frankly, whether or not they keep the commandment of going on a mission is none of our business if we aren't their leader or parent. If we're their friend, our job is to keep being their friend no matter what. WE don't have to apply the commandment to them. That's Heavenly Father's job.

[Backroads]

The only problem with condemning the ones that don't have an obvious handicap is that perhaps they really DO have one that is kept from the public. And since we aren't their bishop, or their mother or father, we should probably just keep ourselves from categorizing them. Frankly, whether or not they keep the commandment of going on a mission is none of our business if we aren't their leader or parent. If we're their friend, our job is to keep being their friend no matter what. WE don't have to apply the commandment to them. That's Heavenly Father's job.

But I'm not talking about a handicap. I'm talking about the boys that just don't think THEY PERSONALLY have to go.

And I fully agree we shouldn't categorize them or judge them. I agree, it's not our business.

I just don't think we should encourage playing down the importance of a mission when one really has no excuse not to go.

[pam]

And after 17 pages...I'm laying this poor horse to rest.

Thread closed.