Mission service: Culture, or canon?

[Guest]

I was browsing Facebook this morning, and came across an article my cousin posted (from a site that, let's be honest, makes me throw up in my mouth more often than not):

 

http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org/2015/06/youre-on-satans-side/

 

Basically, the author's son decided not to serve a mission, and according to the author, the Stake President told him that by doing so, he was choosing Satan's side. The wording was harsh and I don't entirely agree with him, but I don't completely disagree, either. After all, we're told that a man can't serve two masters.  My understanding is that serving a mission is a responsibility for every able, worthy young man; which she claims her son was, he just wasn't giving in to the "culture" of Mormonism and going on a mission just because the "culture" says he should. 

 

So I wonder, do most see missionary service for young men as just an option, or less, a cultural expectation, rather than a priesthood responsibility? I'm not THAT old, but I remember when I was graduating high school, young men knew it was expected of them to be worthy and willing to go. Now I'm seeing many who pass on the "cultural option" of serving a mission to do other things, instead, and not always school. I have nephews who are just dinking around, not really doing anything with their lives, either living at home or with roommates. One dedicates his life to Pokemon tournaments at 20-something years old. But I digress. 

 

When did helping roll the stone forward become a pesky item of culture, rather than an obligation to the Lord?

[pam]

I see it as  Priesthood responsibility not a cultural thing.  That being said, there are justifiable reasons why some young men can't serve missions.  One is not "because I don't want to fall into the cultural trap."

[Laniston]

I didn't serve a mission until I was 25 largely because I was reacting negatively to what I perceived as cultural pressures to serve a mission.  "It's just what young men are supposed to do" didn't cut it for me.  All the songs about it, the talks about it, the friendly advice from leaders, the constant question of "Are you going to go on a mission?", the "Young women, make sure the man you marry is a RM (meaning if you don't go on a mission you are worthless as a prospective husband, right?), etc made me, in my teens and forward from that, more and more jaded towards the idea.  Everyone seemed to be saying I had to go but for cultural reasons and when mention of the Lord's will came up it just didn't have the power to drown out all the other stuff.  I didn't know the Lord, or His will.

 

Things only changed once I finally gained my own testimony of the restored gospel, gained a relationship with God, and actually on my own decided to fast and find out if that's what He wanted me to do.  Many times on my mission the powerful response from God, burned into my spirit's memory, was the only thing that kept me there.  Personally I didn't want to go and didn't like being a missionary very much but I love God and I knew for myself it was His will and the right thing to do.

 

I believe cultural pressure to go on a mission can feel overwhelming and on my mission I met plenty of people who were there because their dad had gone and their 3 older brothers and it was a family legacy.  And I would think....that's nice, but....is that really the only reason?  And I wonder if it would hurt them somehow to be doing this as some kind of rite of passage rather than to serve God and serve His children.  I think the pressure is something that has been around for a while and will continue.  I can't speak for everyone but as a teenager I usually pushed back against the pressures or expectations of other people.  If it wasn't my idea then I wasn't very interested.  It took a lot of growing up to get over myself, filter out the noise, and make the decision to go be about matching my will to God's.  A task impossible to complete until I knew God, and had enough humility and strength of testimony to see through.

[paracaidista508]

My understanding is it is a priesthood obligation of every worthy young man...

That being said, my personal view is that it is a personal decision. One needs to decoide what to do, what to be and how to get there. Once that is decided, one needs to act and get going in life.

My personal opinion as how mission service is regarded as by most members is MANDATORY.

 

I chose not to go on a mission while I was still in high school. I enlisted in the Army and the wrath of the ward was unleashed upon me. I kinda say that jokingly, but that is the way I felt at the time.

My Bishop, Seminary teacher, sunday school, priesthood leaders et al waged a constant campaign against me in order to straighten me out and get me to change my mind. My family was only passively supportive as they didnt hassle me. All my brothers went on missions except me. To this day, none of them gave me any grief.
 
My church leaders never let up though... well at least until I left then I never heard from them again.  I was fairly angry about how I was treated.

Fast fwd 4 yrs later and I found myself back home in a singles ward. I quickly found out there were young women who wouldnt give you the time of day unless you were an RM and others who were not so worked up about it. I married a fine young lady who was concerned if I would be a loving and industrious husband rather than just looking for someone who had "checked the box" as many did then and probably do to this day.

 

Anyway- I have kids now and my expectation is they do something productive in society. I dont really care if they go on missions and it is rarely talked about.

 

Our stake is on a constant offensive over making sure everyone knows it is expected of them (the boys that is). They basically say you are a second class citizen in the church unless you serve a mission. They dont put it that way, but that is the message. All the young ladies are reminded they should seek out an RM for a husband. Our Bishop came into Priesthood opening exercises a while back and made an announcement that the boys need to get their acts together because he didnt want any more young men to become unworthy and not go. He was upset because he had just had to help a young man cancel his mission call. He didnt say who it was, but we all knew. That kid has not been back to church since. 

Anyway- i didnt go on a mission and I got my eagle, married in temple, have great kids, am active in the church, college degree, good job, never divorced and yet I see all around me many others who did the right thing who are complete failures in life. Not because they served a mission, but because a mission is not any guarantee of anything.  I also have many fellow brethren around me who served missions and are fine people with fine families. 

A mission is for those who want to go. If you dont want to go- dont. Go do something worthwhile and move on. Be prepared to get an earful though.

My two cents.

[james12]

Indeed it is a responsibility of priesthood holders. Here are President Monson's words: 

First, to young men of the Aaronic Priesthood and to you young men who are becoming Elders: I repeat what prophets have long taught - that every worthy, able young man should prepare to serve a mission. Missionary service is a priesthood duty - an obligation the Lord expects of us who have been given so very much. ("The Lord Needs Missionaries", Ensign Jan 2011)

That is the requirement. Of course there are some who still do not have burning testimonies. They question if they should go, and when people explain the requirement they feel pressured.

 

Just today I taught a lesson on this subject. I asked the young men (Teachers) how they felt about serving a mission. Some said they were excited, one was vague, and one young men said he did not want to be forced, or told what to do. I told him that his feelings were understandable. That he should not be pushed either way, but that his responsibility was to find out for himself if the Lord would have him serve a mission. He is a young man who is on the High School football team. Some of the boys he is with have caused him to question his beliefs. He is the type who needs to gain a testimony. I felt good about telling him to go to the Lord. Some young men need to gain a testimony. When they don't have a testimony they feel forced. No one can be forced into this gospel. We must be careful with YM to teach them the right way but then let them govern themselves. And then we must hold on, and hope on, trusting in the Lord and his ability to change hearts. 

Edited June 7, 2015 by james12

[Jane_Doe]

"Is serving a mission culture or cannon?"

 

Neither.  

 

One should serve the Lord as the Lord Himself dictates, not by the pressure (positive or negative) of men.

[Just_A_Guy]

Well, serving a mission may not be a doctrinal requirement; but proclaiming the Gospel certainly is--at least, if you're a priesthood holder.

When you receive the priesthood (possibly the Aaronic, certainly the Melchizedek), you take upon yourself the blood and sins of your generation. The Book of Mormon authors (notably Jacob (see also here and here), Benjamin, and Moroni (see also here) were preoccupied with this idea. This obligation has not been discharged by the "raised bar". If you pay very close attention to the beginning of the endowment, it mentions that the initiatory ordinances function differently for those who have the priesthood (i.e. men) versus those who do not (i.e. women).

D&C 84 is clear that males have an obligation to receive the priesthood; so you can't dodge its obligations merely by declining to receive your ordination.

So, with reasonable allowances as defined by the Church based primarily on ability (health/mental conditions, etc), all males are expected to do everything in their power to help others free themselves from the bond of sin. You're most likely never going to get a better chance to do that, than you will by serving an LDS mission.

The Atonement's power covers even our own failure to carry out our duties to the letter; but I think males who had both the opportunity and the ability to serve missions--and declined--will have some uncomfortable moments during their final stewardship interviews. And, more germane to the topic at hand: an able-bodied-and-minded LDS male under 25 who has not served a mission is not taking his priesthood obligations seriously. Which is none of my business, as long as he's not applying to be my son-in-law.

I wouldn't want an LDS young man to feel forced; but nor should he feel entitled. Mormon men are not given the priesthood just so that they can wed and bed the first hot young LDS chickadee who comes their way. They are given the priesthood so that they may act as priests.

Edited June 7, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

I have been thinking a lot about stuff like this recently because I have been thinking about the terrestrial kingdom and the fact that some Mormons may end up there. I feel that not going on a mission should not make you a second class church member and not going should not be an excuse for others to look down on you.

That said, not going on a mission without cause is a pretty terrestrial decision to make. If you make enough terrestrial decisions in your life and don't repent, at some point you become lukewarm and unless you repent and change you could find yourself in the terrestrial kingdom.

As a final point, one who did not go on a mission can still change and repent and become a shining example of being a Latter Day Saint. So as a church maybe we need to watch and make sure we are helping and not impeding those who decided not to go. No one should feel as though they are second class citizens in Gods kingdom.

[Jane_Doe]

If a person cannot listen to the Spirit to tell them whether or not to go on a mission, then how is that person supposed to teach others to listen to the Spirit?

[Backroads]

To preach the gospel is a commandment of the priesthood. For the rank and file this presents practically as serving a mission. Therefore, it's expected if at all possible and becomes a norm of the Church. Is this culture? I'm not a sociologist. But how does one separate this commandment and its practical presentation from "it's what everyone does"?

[Jane_Doe]

To preach the gospel is a commandment of the priesthood. For the rank and file this presents practically as serving a mission. Therefore, it's expected if at all possible and becomes a norm of the Church. Is this culture? I'm not a sociologist. But how does one separate this commandment and its practical presentation from "it's what everyone does"?

 

 

But our call to share the gospel does not end at the end of formal full-time missionary service.  To quote the last General Conference (I don't recall the speaker): "RM does NOT stand for 'retired Mormon'!! " 

[Backroads]

But our call to share the gospel does not end at the end of formal full-time missionary service. To quote the last General Conference (I don't recall the speaker): "RM does NOT stand for 'retired Mormon'!! "

You're right. But how many of those who balk at official missionary service actively share the gospel?

[pam]

But our call to share the gospel does not end at the end of formal full-time missionary service.  To quote the last General Conference (I don't recall the speaker): "RM does NOT stand for 'retired Mormon'!! " 

 

Elder Ballard

[The Folk Prophet]

It has been proclaimed (repeatedly) that it is the "duty" of every worthy, able man of age to serve a mission. The scriptures clearly set doing our duty as a commandment.

 

It's basic math.

 

The Stake President may have been callous and perhaps even inappropriate in calling the young man out in public, though:

 

A. Judgement of the Stake President's actions should be left up to the Lord -- perhaps he was acting under the guidance of the Spirit.

 

B. Are we really to simply take the clearly biased post on a pseudo anti website as factually accurate? Particularly when it's hearsay upon hearsay on top of said probable bias?

 

...but the core principle is plain. You cannot serve God and Mammon.

Edited June 8, 2015 by The Folk Prophet

[Palerider]

I did not serve my mission until after I turned 20yrs old. My Bishop never told me I was serving Satan because I didn't want to go. He kept challenging me to pray about my choice and I had told him I wanted nothing to do with the praying.

[SpiritDragon]

I remember as a young man being extremely annoyed by all the "old people" always asking me if I was going on a mission. It felt like I didn't matter as a human being if I didn't go. I felt quite strongly that I had a different kind of mission to serve than the traditional full time mission. I remember certain phrases standing out to me in conference furthering my feelings that I wasn't supposed to go on such a mission, but that the Lord had a different plan for me. I can really appreciate where young men not feeling like full time missionary service is for them are coming from. Whether they feel like I did that they are meant for a different kind of service or they feel like they aren't up to the task... maybe they feel the church is sexist (against men) in only "requiring" it of the men :) (sorry I had to throw it in there based on the name of the blog)

 

A funny thing happened to me when I prayed about it though - I was told to go - I couldn't believe it, why the strong feelings otherwise, was I deceived? Fast forward a decade and I realize that I do indeed have another mission to serve, but it wasn't meant to replace my time as a full time missionary and the experiences I gained out there have certainly helped to shape the rest of my life.

 

One thing I find interesting however is discussions of worthiness to serve. Sometimes I feel like we do culturally miss the mark on what constitutes worthiness to serve. I think we look at it simply as living 'the for strength of youth' standards. Essentially one is considered worthy to serve if they dress modestly, obey the word of wisdom, keep the law of chastity etc. While this is clearly important it does not meet the criteria set out by the Lord in and of itself. In addition to being temple worthy the lord lays out qualifications in section 4 of the doctrine and covenants;

 

3 Therefore, if ye have desires to serve God ye are called to the work;

4 For behold the field is white already to harvest; and lo, he that thrusteth in his sickle with his might, the same layeth up in store that he perisheth not, but bringeth salvation to his soul;

5 And faith, hope, charity and love, with an eye single to the glory of God, qualify him for the work.

 

It is my opinion that if someone does not desire to serve, they are not to be called based on verse three. I further believe that if they lack the faith in Jesus Christ to make preaching the gospel a priority, they lack the hope that their brothers and sisters can be saved, they lack the charity and love to try, and put there own interests above the purposes of God than they clearly aren't qualified (worthy) of the work. This isn't to say they can't become so later, and I think many who exercise a particle of faith to go develop the rest while out there, but it's what I thought when I read in the article about the mother expressing how her son was worthy of missionary service but chose not to - and I just don't see it working that way. Before I have everyone jumping on this comment and saying I'm being judgmental please understand that I'm not making a judgment about this person who i don't know and I'm not speculating about other areas of temple worthiness or personal righteousness. I'm simply expressing my opinion and observation that the scriptures suggest to me that if I or anyone else chooses not to serve we simply lack those attributes that qualify us for the work.

[pam]

I did not serve my mission until after I turned 20yrs old. My Bishop never told me I was serving Satan because I didn't want to go. He kept challenging me to pray about my choice and I had told him I wanted nothing to do with the praying.

 

What a rebel you were. And to think you've been a Bishop twice now just since I've known you.  :)

[The Folk Prophet]

Spiritdragon, I understand your concern about people jumping all over you, but your insight seems pretty straight forward to me. Desire is part of what makes one worthy to serve.

Edited June 8, 2015 by The Folk Prophet

[Str8Shooter]

Having dealt with this line of thinking and reasoning before, I feel there is much more to this story that what is being said in this blog.  After reading the blog post, Isaiah comes to mind:

 

 9 That this is a rebellious people, lying children, children that will not hear the law of the Lord:

 10 Which say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits:

 11 Get you out of the way, turn aside out of the path, cause the Holy One of Israel to cease from before us.

The member of the Stake Presidency did not speak smooth things, if that is even what was said.  People who rebel in this manner often misrepresent or flat out lie about things to sensationalize and inflame.

It is a commandment for every worthy young male to serve a mission.  President Spencer W. Kimball said it in 1974 and the way he said it left no room for interpretation.  It is a commandment from the Lord.  There is no debate or question about it.  To not serve a mission when a young man is worthy and able is, without question, a sin.  A friend of mine often says, "There are three types of sin.  The sins of commission, of omission, and of no mission."

 

Should a young man serve a mission if he doesn't want to?  Yes.  Should a young man serve a mission if he doesn't know if he should?  No.  There are critical differences between these two questions, and these questions are different as night and day.

 

I did not serve a mission at 19 because I was too busy being ignorant.  One day I decided to prove the Lord's existence  and really seek an answer, fully willing to act on the answer I did or did not receive.  I hiked to my favorite ridge and prayed.  I prayed with real intent and faith.  My answer was clear.  It was simply that serving a mission was the right thing to do.  So I went.  I didn't really want to, but I did.

 

Bottom line:  It is a commandment for every able, worthy young male to serve a mission.

 

 

By the way, the article is a very perfect example of the philosophies of the world mingled with scripture.

Edited June 8, 2015 by Str8Shooter

[priesthoodpower]

I liked that missionary story from that feminist blog. More stories like that need to be told. This is the informational age and I believe that the internet is a tool to further the work of the Lord in this dispensation.

 

The leaders in our stakes are old school and were raised in the 70's, 80's, 90's. Most of you all in here have that same old school approach to how the Gospel is delivered. The word never changes but the way we deliver it needs to change, and it is changing.

 

For example I remember being on a mission in 1998 and my mission president telling us that "..the lessons were inspired from God to our apostles and we need to read them word-for-word to our investigators..no side tracking or going off subject". In 2002 they changed that and now go along with whatever the investigators questions are.

 

The way we teach our youth in sunday school has also changed, there is no longer a set lesson but rather a range of lessons to choose from that help the teacher to do less teaching and more of "leading a discussion". From what I was told as the Sunday school president in my ward...coming from my stake presidency was that "...we are loosing many of our youth to other churches that cater more toward the younger generation by doing all sorts of fun activities...we need to cater more toward their needs and engage with them in our classes."

 

From what I am hearing this same teaching method is going to be implemented into the adult gospel doctrine class too. Is this because we are losing adult members as well? ..we need to cater more to their individual needs and concerns rather then painting one wide brush stroke across the board?

 

I love the way our church is continually progressing to meet the needs of its membership, not according to the ways of the world but according to the ways of our Lord, I believe that our apostles and leaders are called to receive continual revelation to guide the church and that means things change as we pray and ask for advice about problems we face on a daily basis.

 

As far as the young man in that blog that was told he was following satan by not serving a mission, the word and letter of the law will not change but (by devine inspiration) the way our stake and ward leaders deliver these types of messages will change and evolve.

[Palerider]

What a rebel you were. And to think you've been a Bishop twice now just since I've known you.  :)

Yes I know .....just shows there is hope for everyone. Lol

[Windseeker]

I think the emphasis on serving a mission is appropriate but publicly ostracizing a young man does not seem to be the way of the Lord, actually it seems to be Satan's way. We can't accomplish the Lord's purposes using Satan's methods.  

 

Both my son and nephew are in their 20's and have decided not to serve missions but instead focus on their band. My wife and I both served missions and loved them and without ever discussing it we approach our mission aged residents the same way in that we encourage them as best we can without becoming a stumbling block.

 

Reading this article though it's clear that the authors attitude and approach have more to do with her son leaving the Church then anything said by the Stake President or members.

[The Folk Prophet]

I liked that missionary story from that feminist blog. More stories like that need to be told. 

 

I think the emphasis on serving a mission is appropriate but publicly ostracizing a young man does not seem to be the way of the Lord, actually it seems to be Satan's way. We can't accomplish the Lord's purposes using Satan's methods.  

 

Can you give any reason why we should accept this lady's account as accurate?

[Windseeker]

Can you give any reason why we should accept this lady's account as accurate?

 

I don't know that it is or isn't. For the sake of discussion I can pretend it is.

[The Folk Prophet]

I don't know that it is or isn't. For the sake of discussion I can pretend it is.

 

I'm not sure why we would pretend that it is when it's A) posted on Mormon Feminist Housewives, B) posted by someone who is obviously bitter and angry, C) reported to that person by someone who has, essentially left the church, and D) can you really imagine any church leader singling out a youth and proclaiming to the entire congregation at hand that said youth was following Satan?

 

The entire thing is fishy, fishy, fishy!

 

Moreover, let's say, just for the sake of argument, that we take the literal story as factual and the SP did just this -- Are we to presume that he was not acting under guidance of the Spirit? Is it not just as likely that several others in the congregation were bolstered, uplifted, strengthened, and inspired by his words, and that perhaps the reality is that the kid who was offended was on his way out no matter what who said, and the Spirit, knowing all things, knew what was going to be more effective for more souls, etc., and guided the SP accordingly?

 

Why are we to take these bitter proclamations of supposed problems by disaffected pickle-suckers as the end all of reality? 

 

Baloney with a capital B.