Why I didn't go on a mission (and why not everyone should)

[PrinceofLight2000]

I just felt like my story in this department needs to be shared. Don't worry, it won't be a thousand-page novel.

As some of you may remember, I and my family have had various financial and medical struggles for many years now. I lost a good 3 years of my life via indecisiveness which originally started with post-high school laziness and gradually morphed into a period of anxiety and depression that I couldn't find a way out of. I didn't need any medication, I just needed to get my life stable again.

I chose to not go on a mission. I did this despite direct and specific personal revelation that I will be going on a mission at some point in my life, which, at this point will probably be taking place once I'm married and retired. I received apparently contradictory personal revelation that I needed to stay home and get my life in order. During the time in which I was expected to go on a mission (after I had turned 19), it simply didn't feel like the right thing to do even though I hadn't seriously prayed about it at the time. I underwent mountains of pressure from family, ward members, friends, and my girlfriend at the time to "just go" and "let everything take care of itself". I didn't feel ready, and the cognitive dissonance that was taking place in my mind made me confused, and when I get confused, I become indecisive and idle. Naturally, the idleness made the anxiety problem worse.

It got to the point where (and here's the bigger reason why) I finally realized that I wasn't actually emotionally healthy or mature enough to go on a mission. Because of what I was told by members around me, since I was in adolescence, I had always assumed that a mission is what brings your true, righteous character and self-reliant maturity out. I was wrong, and so were they. In reality, that character needs to be present before you go on a mission, otherwise you will never be an effective missionary. I came to this epiphany in the midst of my greatest trial, the chronic pain I have to deal with every single day. It gave me a lot of time to sit and really think about my choices and where they had led me, which resulted in prayer, which fed the decision I made not to go.

At the same time, I believe bad things that are allowed to happen to one person can cause good things to happen to another. Had I left on my mission when most of us in the church expected young men to go, at 19, several things would likely either not have changed in my life, or the change would have been delayed so much as to cause additional damage, which I now know for a fact wouldn't have been good for me or for other parties involved. I would probably still be with my ex, who I knew deep down wasn't right for me but I wouldn't admit it because I, in my state of denial, bought into the lie that seems to permeate LDS culture (I see it a lot here at BYUI, actually) that you can marry anyone you want, even the first person you see, and if you work hard enough despite obvious signs of incompatibility then undoubtedly you'll be satisfied, nevermind personality or other relatively static factors that may affect your communication and relationship overall. But this isn't the most compelling aspect of this reason. Had I gone when I was "supposed" to, I would never have met my current girlfriend who is now converted and will be attending BYUI in just a week, she would have never been introduced to the gospel at a crucial point in time, and more than likely she would have committed suicide as a result of the psychological abuse she suffered at the hands of her parents.

The moral of my story is this: You have to be prepared for your mission before you go, and only after you've received revelation that it's where you need to be at that point in time. I had an LDS friend who told me that he left his mission because he felt that he wasn't prepared, and he taught me a valuable lesson. A missionary needs to be physically, spiritually, and emotionally prepared. I learned that I wasn't even close to being emotionally prepared for a mission, or for autonomous life.

Now that I'm done sharing, I'd like to add a little commentary about missionary work in general. I dislike the way Mormon culture (NOT prophets or general authorities), at least as I've experienced it, treats going on a mission. I think it emphasizes missions in a way that can be incredibly spiritually dangerous and misleading. From what I have observed, going on a mission is more of a social expectation than a spiritual act. It's assumed that all young men will go, and that nothing will get in their way, and that as long as they are taught correct principles that nothing can get in their way. Missions seem to be treated as a duty to the church (I observed this amongst my young men's instructors) more than as a willful act of service and a virtue.

Secondly, not going on a mission is a social stigma of the highest order in LDS culture, something I find incredibly offensive. Everywhere I go, I see young women refusing to date young men not because of their spiritual character, but because they didn't go on a mission, and worse yet I've seen the claim made here numerous times at BYU-I that missionaries are automatically more spiritually aware. At the same time, unconscious positive stereotypes exist about anyone who has served on a mission, spiritual character aside. I've heard many, many stories about missionaries sent home for doing abominable things and return missionaries who should have been sent home but weren't, and despite all of this being revealed there's still this cognitive dissonance in our culture that compels people to think that mission = saint. Even as I type this post, I worry, though perhaps unnecessarily, that I'm being judged for my decision.

Lastly, I'd like to touch on the importance of member missionary work. Believe it or not, I think it's OUR job to be doing most of the missionary work, and that the true reason why we have full-time missionaries is to give investigators whom WE as members already made interested a deeper level of spiritual example and better, more precise instruction. The thing that we have that full-time missionaries lack is the ability to create more long-term, intimate relationships based on not just the gospel, but other aspects of life, which I believe can help break the ice and more easily open the door to mutual understanding. We, the members, need to be just as spiritually powerful as the missionaries so that we can find those in our lives who need and are receptive to the gospel because we're around non-members just as often! I feel like there are a lot of people in the church who get so wrapped up in their daily lives that they forget this obligation and justify their laziness by deferring to the full-time missionaries on grounds of unpreparedness, and the pressures and burdens of full-time missionaries are increased because of it. But we must be prepared. I wonder what it would be like if every single member did everything they could feasibly do to use their relationships to teach the gospel. I'm inclined to think that we wouldn't need full-time missionaries the same way we do now.

Edited December 29, 2013 by PrinceofLight2000

[Vort]

Responding to your points, as I understand them:

1. Young men who are socially immature ought not serve full-time missions. Perhaps this is true. My response would be that the young man and his parents should work to get him socially and otherwise mature enough to serve a mission by the time he's 20 or so, rather than just writing off missionary service as "unwise".

2. Mormon culture's emphasis on serving a mission is dangerous and misleading. I acknowledge that their may be a grain of truth to this, perhaps a rather large grain. But what is the alternative? Having a culture that says, "Oh, yeah, missionary work, whatever, no biggie"? Almost by definition, the functional IQ of large groups is about 20% lower than that of the constituent individuals. I don't know that a "societal expectation" can be as nuanced as "Serving a mission is the expected course and is the duty of every young Priesthood holder, but sometimes things don't work out as expected."

If we take our Priesthood duty to missionary service seriously, I don't see how the societal expectation will be substantially changed. For example, marrying a returned missionary is in no stretch a guarantee of happiness, of course, but it's a game of odds. Returned missionaries have demonstrated a commitment to duty and a willingness to do hard things, and that counts for something. When the time comes, you can bet I will counsel my own daughter to date men who have served missions. Why would I possibly do anything else for my precious daughter? It's no guarantee, but it certainly sweetens the pot, odds-wise.

3. Member missionay work is important; we should be finding investigators for the missionaries to teach. Amen.

[PrinceofLight2000]

Responding to your points, as I understand them:

1. Young men who are socially immature ought not serve full-time missions. Perhaps this is true. My response would be that the young man and his parents should work to get him socially and otherwise mature enough to serve a mission by the time he's 20 or so, rather than just writing off missionary service as "unwise".

Amen. Although sometimes the right time doesn't happen until even later in life, as seems to be the case with me. While my life has gotten a lot better than it was, I still don't feel ready yet.

2. Mormon culture's emphasis on serving a mission is dangerous and misleading. I acknowledge that their may be a grain of truth to this, perhaps a rather large grain. But what is the alternative? Having a culture that says, "Oh, yeah, missionary work, whatever, no biggie"? Almost by definition, the functional IQ of large groups is about 20% lower than that of the constituent individuals. I don't know that a "societal expectation" can be as nuanced as "Serving a mission is the expected course and is the duty of every young Priesthood holder, but sometimes things don't work out as expected."

I'm not sure I'm picking up what you're putting down here. However, as a psych major, I totally agree that groupthink is terrible. Haha.

If we take our Priesthood duty to missionary service seriously, I don't see how the societal expectation will be substantially changed.

I don't think the problem is entirely about taking the Priesthood duty to missionary service seriously. I think it has more to do with the stereotypes that have been created within the church that surround it, and those who believe or even teach those stereotypes need a new perspective.

For example, marrying a returned missionary is in no stretch a guarantee of happiness, of course, but it's a game of odds. Returned missionaries have demonstrated a commitment to duty and a willingness to do hard things, and that counts for something. When the time comes, you can bet I will counsel my own daughter to date men who have served missions. Why would I possibly do anything else for my precious daughter? It's no guarantee, but it certainly sweetens the pot, odds-wise.

Again, I think it's just a matter of perspective and improperly equated concepts. Would it be more important that your daughter's future husband was of great spiritual character or that he served a full-time mission? Obviously (I hope), you'd prioritize the former. A lot of people think they're identical by necessity.

3. Member missionary work is important; we should be finding investigators for the missionaries to teach. Amen.

Amen indeed. Edited December 29, 2013 by PrinceofLight2000

[Guest]

At 22, you're far from too old to consider serving. Are you still thinking about it?

[PrinceofLight2000]

At 22, you're far from too old to consider serving. Are you still thinking about it?

Yes, but I know now isn't the right time. If something changes later, then so be it.

[Quin]

I guess Im a little confused..

You use the past tense when you say that you chose not to... But if you're 22 as I understand... Then it's actually that you're CHOOSING not to go.

Since you still have a few years where you're eligible to go.

Not saying that you should... Merely that the tone in what I'm reading says done deal.

You WERE too XYZ, not enough ABC, etc.

No recourse.

No possible change.

When it's not.

It's an ongoing decision UNTIL the deadline passes.

While its certainly more common to go at 18/19... The cutoff is 25.

I'm sure we all know a handful, at least, who went to college or served in the military and THEN went on a mission.

Again... I'm not saying whether you (or anyone) should or shouldn't go.

It's just more of a dynamic thing than I think you are presenting.

Most people change a great deal between 18-25.

Just because a person isn't ready at 18, doesn't mean that 7 years later they'll still be in the same mental & emotional place.

Q

[PrinceofLight2000]

I guess Im a little confused..

You use the past tense when you say that you chose not to... But if you're 22 as I understand... Then it's actually that you're CHOOSING not to go.

Since you still have a few years where you're eligible to go.

Not saying that you should... Merely that the tone in what I'm reading says done deal.

You WERE too XYZ, not enough ABC, etc.

No recourse.

No possible change.

When it's not.

It's an ongoing decision UNTIL the deadline passes.

While its certainly more common to go at 18/19... The cutoff is 25.

I'm sure we all know a handful, at least, who went to college or served in the military and THEN went on a mission.

Again... I'm not saying whether you (or anyone) should or shouldn't go.

It's just more of a dynamic thing than I think you are presenting.

Most people change a great deal between 18-25.

Just because a person isn't ready at 18, doesn't mean that 7 years later they'll still be in the same mental & emotional place.

Q

I agree. I clarified later. Sometimes I mix up tenses without thinking about it; while it started in the past and was its most severe in the past it's still an ongoing issue.

Edited December 29, 2013 by PrinceofLight2000

[mordorbund]

I'm using Vort's summaries because I think they represent the points well.

1. Young men who are socially immature ought not serve full-time missions. I think there's some truth to this. A missionary should be properly prepared for a mission. That means that he should already be thinking about preparing for and serving a mission before he turns 19 (or 18). Some good ways for parents and leaders to aid this preparation includes

• inviting the missionaries over for dinner. This provides exposure to full-time missionaries and missionary work and provides an opportunity to interview missionaries about the day-to-day experience. If you do this regularly, you'll get to see a variety of missionaries and realize they aren't cut from the same cookie-cutter.
  
• sharing your own mission stories. There's a reason why veteran missionaries love their missions. Don't keep it a secret.
  
• assigning strong home teaching companions to the young man, and include part-member and inactive families in the route. This is probably the closest you'll get to simulating mission experience without serving a mission. Of course, this would include the young man making appointments and teaching the lessons.
  
• inviting friends and family of other faiths into your home to visit with the missionaries. This shows the missionaries in action, while illustrating the value you place on the work itself.
  

Most, if not all of these have already been institutionalized in the wards and branches I've attended.

Ultimately, the young man needs to prepare himself so that when he is of mission age he is prepared. As a parent, I feel the responsibility to prepare my own sons as well, but I recognize that it will be their own decision. Having said that, if my child showed up to kindergarten and wasn't potty trained, who bears the responsibility? Knowing that there's an expectation there doesn't mean I start training mid-August for a 5 year-old. Knowing the expectation means I start preparing him early to meet it. As I deal with older children, they assume more of their own responsibility to see that they fulfill future duties.

2. Mormon culture's emphasis on serving a mission is dangerous and misleading.

I would compare the priesthood duty of serving a mission to the priesthood duty of blessing and passing the sacrament. When you take on the priesthood, you do your duty.

I have no daughters or sisters, so I'm speaking hypothetically here and defer to those who do. If I had a daughter or sister who was dating I would tell her to find a man who honors his priesthood, and a good bellwhether for that was to see if he was fulfilling his duties. If she's a young woman, she should see if he's blessing and passing the sacrament. It's the most visible example avalailable. If he isn't, then she needs to make sure she's comfortable with the reason that he isn't. If she's a single adult, she can ask about his mission. If he hasn't served, then she needs to make sure she's comfortable with the reason that he didn't. In looking for a potential spouse, I want her to find someone who will fulfill his priesthood duties in the home: giving blessings, baptizing children, rearing them in the gospel.

As an equal opportunity hater, I tell my brothers the same thing: do your duty. And that includes being prepared to act. It's some of the best advice I can give on being a man.

3. Member missionay work is important; we should be finding investigators for the missionaries to teach. No arguments from me here.