Mission service: Culture, or canon?

[The Folk Prophet]

Sure let's add them, I don't see how they relate directly to this topic but but you're appear to be setting up a false dichotomy here.  Some things are absolute.  We have to be baptized, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is unforgivable, etc.  Not everything is.  For other things, we have discernment.

 

Are you saying we aren't supposed to use our discernment and follow the promptings of the Spirit?  

 

No. You said that Siths and Pharisees deal in absolutes. Clearly Christ also dealt in absolutes. Clearly many others beyond the wicked, fictional Sith and the wicked, historical Pharisee deal in absolutes too, including many good men, and including Christ himself. Including Hitler and including Captain Moroni. Including Korihor and including all of the Nephis. I am simply pointing out that your effort to vilify "absolutes" as if they're only utilized by the wicked is malarkey. My point is that there is a war going on, and there are lines drawn, and we either join one side or we join the other. My point is that absolutes are at the core of the war, and which absolute we stand behind defines which side we have chosen.

 

As to the promptings of the Spirit and following it...guess what...that's also an absolute! (Oh wicked despicable absolute!! *fist shake*)

 

If the Spirit says to do something, then it's right. Period. I'm not sure you'll find any LDS person who disagrees with that.

 

But using "I don't feel like going on a mission" to mean "the Spirit prompted me" is nonsense, plain and simple. And I believe it's been stated on here, and I tend to agree, that the Spirit isn't about to dissuade a healthy, young, capable male from going on a mission. The idea's sort of laughable, actually.

 

No offense, but that's the intellectually easy way.  

 

Since when does intellectually easy or hard have anything to do with morality whatsoever? I don't recall any scripture, teaching, or otherwise that sets up the intellectual easy way as mistaken? There is one correct path and one incorrect path. The correct path is ALWAYS obedience. The incorrect path is ALWAYS disobedience. And discernment never allows for disobedience, and the Lord never can, never will, and never has justified disobedience. Ever.

 

It is to be understood, of course, that obedience is to the Lord, and not to the letter of any given law. Hence, if the Lord commands (by the Spirit or otherwise) then obey and you are justified, because it is obedience even if the letter of the law states otherwise. (As we see in examples of Nephi slaying Laban and the like).

 

And, of course the Lord forgives disobedience upon repentance, which some people seem to conflate with justification of such. Can one repent of disobedience? Of course. Can one humble oneself and change? Yes. Can one be in good standing with the Lord in spite of past mistakes? Yes - of course. Does any of that justify disobedience? No.

 

Tell me, if it's such an absolute duty, then why doesn't a failure to go on a mission bar someone from having a Temple Recommend?  Because it isn't an absolute rule, that's why.  If I'm a 21 year old young man in the Church and I smoke a joint I have to repent of it before I can go to the Temple, but I can completely blow off a mission and no problem.  And that's without even bringing up the question of whether or not the Spirit even prompted me to.

 

Why can people not understand that having a temple recommend is not the end all of righteousness? This seems so obvious, and yet so unclear to so many. There are literally hundreds (if not thousands) of sins one could list that would not cause someone to lose their temple recommend. Does that justify any of them? Can the Lord accept any of those sins? Does one have no need of repentance for them because they have a temple recommend?

 

Of course not going on a mission, in and of itself, is not a sin. Obviously, and clearly, there are valid reasons to not go. The sins involved in not going are related to the reasons why one isn't going. I'm fairly sure no one would think twice about someone for not going on a mission if they were unable to due to health, military obligation, etc. And, in point of fact, you are correct that no one should judge another for going or not going. But what you're conflating is the counsel and exhortation to prepare and go with judgment for not going. Some do judge others for not going. And we should, even if we're correct in our assumptions about the reasons for not going being a mistake, forgive instead. But we should also continue to exhort and counsel.

 

I remember when church members were absolutely, rigidly refusing to watch any movie rated R by the MPAA on the grounds that some General Authority suggested they not.  To them, it became a Commandment.  No discernment, no judgement, no praying for guidance, they'd just do it like their Temple Recommend depended on it.

 

I honestly cannot fathom why anyone would have a problem with others rigidly refusing to watch any movie rated R by the MPAA.

 

You can keep accusing me of building a strawman if you feel like it helps your argument, brother, but that is the position you've taken from where I sit.  If you feel I've misunderstood something then I'd ask you to clarify it, but just by way of a friendly FYI, accusing someone of a strawman is rather like accusing them of dishonesty, and I'm assuming you don't mean it that way.

 

The straw man is the whole -- men who fail to go on missions aren't "Mormon enough" -- thing. We did not say that, nor anything like unto it, and to infer that it was said, or was implied in any way is false. Whether that falsehood was intentional or not was not part of my accusation. I have no idea if you are intentionally dishonest. I would presume (and sincerely hope) not.

Edited June 9, 2015 by The Folk Prophet

[unixknight]

Well I could accuse you of a strawman in that I never said absolutes were always bad, but I will extend the same benefit of the doubt that I would have from you.    By way of clarification, I never said that absolutes were somehow universally wrong.  In fact, I said so already when I addressed the scriptural examples you provided.  

 

In bringing up the Pharisees (in seriousness) and the Sith (in jest) the point I'm making is that the Savior scolded the Pharisees for thinking so rigidly about the letter of the law that they no longer paid any attention  to the promptings of the Holy Spirit (if ever they did to begin with).  That isn't to say that morality is subjective, and I'd hope that you don't think that I'm arguing for it.  Certainly not... we do have Commandments, and they do need to be followed.  Thing is, going on a mission isn't a Commandment because not everyone is chosen to go.

 

And... just by way of further clarification, I NEVER defended "I don't feel like going on a mission" by saying the Spirit didn't prompt the person.  Please don't put words in my mouth.  (Or... words on my keyboard, as it were  )

 

Now, I agree with you that we must obey the Lord, where we differ is that I'm not convinced that the Lord wants every single person to go on a mission.  Not everybody has the same talents and gifts of the Holy Spirit.

 

I do agree that the reason someone doesn't go can be disobedience, and yeah as you also pointed out it isn't for us to judge, but still a lot of people do.  Exhorting and counseling should happen, but not if it puts a person in a position where such counsel might conflict with the prompting they've received form the Holy Spirit.

 

Going "just to be safe" is no reason to go.  (Not that you've posited that, it's just a thought that occurred to me.)  There may be a reason the prompting didn't occur.

 

Now, yes there's plenty of sinful stuff we can do that doesn't block a recommend, but the magnitude that some people are suggesting for the mission calling is pretty huge.  Certainly more than smoking a joint or having a couple shots of vodka, wouldn't you say?

 

As for the MPAA thing... I don't care what other people watch or choose to watch, but I've been scolded by (well-meaning) people because I liked the movie Equilibrium (rated R for comic bookish violence.)  I find that annoying, but it's also a great example of people treating comments by a General Authority as if it were scriptural commandments.  (As I assume you know, they recently released a statement clarifying that point.)

 

You may not have meant the "not going on a mission makes you not Mormon enough" comment that way, but you gotta look at how this comes across, bro.

[priesthoodpower]

PP, you do realize there isn't one sociologist who would agree with you?

 

and that is the problem with this world, everyone is too worried about what others think of them.

I could care less because my reality is not yours or that of some scientists.

 

The only approval that I seek is Gods, and since I have felt the Holy Ghost many of times in my life I know that he approves of me and my way of doing things. There are also many of times when I have felt the spirit withdrawn from my life and that is when I know he does not approve.

[priesthoodpower]

 Please don't put words in my mouth.  (Or... words on my keyboard, as it were  )

 

 

Folk Prophet tends to do that a lot.

[The Folk Prophet]

And... just by way of further clarification, I NEVER defended "I don't feel like going on a mission" by saying the Spirit didn't prompt the person.  Please don't put words in my mouth.  (Or... words on my keyboard, as it were  )

 

I'm putting words in the mouth of the 18 year old boys claiming the Spirit's prompted them because...insert excuse. Perhaps unjustly in some, minor, very, very far and few between cases.

 

where we differ is that I'm not convinced that the Lord wants every single person to go on a mission.  Not everybody has the same talents and gifts of the Holy Spirit.

 

Where we differ, it seems to me, is in the talents and gifts of the Spirit someone has having any bearing on whether one should serve a mission or not.

 

 

I do agree that the reason someone doesn't go can be disobedience, and yeah as you also pointed out it isn't for us to judge, but still a lot of people do.  Exhorting and counseling should happen, but not if it puts a person in a position where such counsel might conflict with the prompting they've received form the Holy Spirit.

 

How is this a problem? "You should go on a mission." "The Spirit told me not to." "I don't believe you." "Tough. I'm doing what the Spirit directs anyway." "Okay. Your life."

 

Going "just to be safe" is no reason to go.  (Not that you've posited that, it's just a thought that occurred to me.)  There may be a reason the prompting didn't occur.

 

Here's another way we fundamentally disagree. Our duty is our duty unless we are distinctly directed otherwise. Not having a direct revelation that we should go is a dereliction of duty.

 

Now, yes there's plenty of sinful stuff we can do that doesn't block a recommend, but the magnitude that some people are suggesting for the mission calling is pretty huge.  Certainly more than smoking a joint or having a couple shots of vodka, wouldn't you say?

 

No I would not say, and I honestly cannot imagine who would think the basically good kid who's undecided about a mission is worse than the hoodlum smoking a joint on the street corner.

 

You may not have meant the "not going on a mission makes you not Mormon enough" comment that way, but you gotta look at how this comes across, bro.

 

It comes across based on how large the chip is on one's shoulder about missions it seems.

[The Folk Prophet]

Folk Prophet tends to do that a lot.

 

I suppose ganging up on me gives you a nice sense of smug satisfaction at some level. I'm not sure it's adding much to the discussion.

[priesthoodpower]

 ..I only feel that a mission should be done by those who truly feel it as a calling and not as a "duty". if you are just going through the motions and don't really have a strong testimony you probably shouldn't go on a mission.

 

MG, in my experience I was just going through the motions at 19 because basically I had no other options in life. Went to Junior College at 18 and got kicked out because school wasnt really for me.

 

Returned home and put my papers in for a mission, not because I thought it was my duty or "calling" but moreso that it was a tradition in my small mormon community.

 

In hind sight, the examples of the older boys and my upbringing within that community was preparing me for a mission I just didnt realize it at the time. I didnt have any major vices (sex/drugs/alcohol etc..) which made those 2 years much more easier.

 

I would strongly advocate that any other young LDS male that is worthy but unsure about a mission should go.

 

The first week I arrived in the Mission Training Center the spirit was so strong and pure, you will never experience another atmosphere like that on earth, not even in a chapel or temple. The purity of the spirit in the MTC actually caused me to start to vomit out a hidden sin that I did not confess to my bishop at home. I went and saw the Stake President in the MTC and confessed the sin that was bothering me, he said "Son, the Lord needs you out in the field and not at home, I take full responsibility of that sin, forget it and go serve!"

 

A few experiences that I had on my mission "while going through the motions" is what cemented my testimony in the gospel.

[Guest MormonGator]

MG, in my experience I was just going through the motions at 19 because basically I had no other options in life. Went to Junior College at 18 and got kicked out because school wasnt really for me.

 

Great. Glad it worked out for you, and I really mean that. 

But imagine going on a mission out of force and getting kicked out before it ends because it "really isn't for you." 

[Vort]

I remember when church members were absolutely, rigidly refusing to watch any movie rated R by the MPAA on the grounds that some General Authority suggested they not.  To them, it became a Commandment.  No discernment, no judgement, no praying for guidance, they'd just do it like their Temple Recommend depended on it.

 

Perhaps you will find it unsurprising that I refuse to watch any R-rated movies, and have done so for decades now.

[Vort]

Tell me, if it's such an absolute duty, then why doesn't a failure to go on a mission bar someone from having a Temple Recommend?  Because it isn't an absolute rule, that's why.  If I'm a 21 year old young man in the Church and I smoke a joint I have to repent of it before I can go to the Temple, but I can completely blow off a mission and no problem.

 

I'm just amazed at this.

 

Is exaltation an Absolute Rule? Can you get a temple recommend if you swear at your wife?

 

Since when did the gospel become a list of "Absolute Rules" vs. "Things You Might Wanna Consider But Hey, You Aren't Required To Do These Because God Doesn't Really Care"?

 

Do you honestly believe that qualifying for a temple recommend means you qualify for eternal life?

 

If a young man refuses to make himself worthy and available to do his missionary duty, then he has failed in his duty to God. That's pretty much true by definition. This does not mean he is damned. This does not mean there is no hope for his eternal soul. This does not mean he has forfeited his exaltation. It means that he has failed in his duty to God.

 

How can this even be a point for debate? Does the plain meaning of words no longer count?

[Vort]

But imagine going on a mission out of force and getting kicked out before it ends because it "really isn't for you." 

 

Indeed. And imagine a gigantic snow dragon descending from the clouds and vomiting all over your house.

 

Also, imagine if all the raindrops were hydrofluoric acid. Oh, what a rain that would be!

 

Also, imagine all the people living as if John Lennon were their prophet.

 

(Translation: What you wrote is utterly non sequitur.)

[Backroads]

and that is the problem with this world, everyone is too worried about what others think of them.

I could care less because my reality is not yours or that of some scientists.

 

The only approval that I seek is Gods, and since I have felt the Holy Ghost many of times in my life I know that he approves of me and my way of doing things. There are also many of times when I have felt the spirit withdrawn from my life and that is when I know he does not approve.

So... even though churches who modernize and change to attract new members and ease up on their doctrine tend to collapse, you're right and I'm wrong?

[priesthoodpower]

I suppose ganging up on me gives you a nice sense of smug satisfaction at some level. I'm not sure it's adding much to the discussion.

 

Why do you get offended when I only stated fact about you putting false words into other peoples mouths?

This is what I said:

"I cant wait till this older generation of leaders that are stuck in the mode of condemning people for not being good enough are up and out and the younger generation of leaders that can relate to and have sympathy come in.. "

you put words in my mouth and replied:

"Did you just state casually that you can't wait for our prophets and apostles to die?"

which caused 3 people to like your post and cause another poster to say "LOL, I think he did"

looks like you and a few other "HIGH HORSE" riders in here are the ones doing the ganging up!

 

#hypocrite

#CanDoNoWrong

[Guest MormonGator]

Indeed. And imagine a gigantic snow dragon descending from the clouds and vomiting all over your house.

 

Also, imagine if all the raindrops were hydrofluoric acid. Oh, what a rain that would be!

 

Also, imagine all the people living as if John Lennon were their prophet.

 

(Translation: What you wrote is utterly non sequitur.)

 Right, I was trying to make a bigger point. We're not a bunch of lawyers arguing on a logical matter-it's much deeper than that. I stand by the point I made, 100%. 

 

First you look at one thing. Am I morally pure or temple worthy? 

Then you look at another thing: Do I really, truly have a solid testimony? Am I emotionally prepared to leave home and deal with the real world? Can I suffer insults to my faith or attacks on it? 

 

The issues for choosing to go on a mission are huge. I'm glad I know myself enough to know that I wouldn't go one then, nor would I now. Does that make me a bad LDS? Of course not. Just a different one. 

Edited June 10, 2015 by MormonGator

[priesthoodpower]

So... even though churches who modernize and change to attract new members and ease up on their doctrine tend to collapse, you're right and I'm wrong?

 

what are you talking about??

[Palerider]

Perhaps you will find it unsurprising that I refuse to watch any R-rated movies, and have done so for decades now.

Same here .....We do not watch "R" rated movies in our house.

[Just_A_Guy]

(Mod hat on for a moment)

 

Guys, play nice.

 

That is all.

[The Folk Prophet]

Why do you get offended when I only stated fact about you putting false words into other peoples mouths?

This is what I said:

"I cant wait till this older generation of leaders that are stuck in the mode of condemning people for not being good enough are up and out and the younger generation of leaders that can relate to and have sympathy come in.. "

you put words in my mouth and replied:

"Did you just state casually that you can't wait for our prophets and apostles to die?"

which caused 3 people to like your post and cause another poster to say "LOL, I think he did"

looks like you and a few other "HIGH HORSE" riders in here are the ones doing the ganging up!

 

#hypocrite

#CanDoNoWrong

 

Can you tell the difference between a statement and a question? I'm pretty sure that asking a question is the exact opposite of putting words in someones mouth. It gives you the very fair opportunity to correct. I cannot help how others replied or that they liked my post. But I am certainly innocent of putting words in your mouth in this case.

 

Moreover, there is a distinct difference between agreeing with and supporting someone else's views and pointing out others' flaws by way of criticism and effectual bullying.

 

Can you make these distinctions?

Edited June 10, 2015 by The Folk Prophet

[priesthoodpower]

FP you can do no wrong! I understand.

[Guest MormonGator]

Same here .....We do not watch "R" rated movies in our house.

 We had a speaker in church talk about this a few weeks ago. She was on a van and a movie was being played she chose not to watch. 

[Palerider]

Perhaps you will find it unsurprising that I refuse to watch any R-rated movies, and have done so for decades now.

Same here .....We do not watch "R" rated movies in our house. Also if I am not mistaken it's also in the For the Strength of Youth pamphlet....they are encouraged not to watch R rated movies.

[Backroads]

 

I cant wait till this older generation of leaders that are stuck in the mode of condemning people for not being good enough are up and out and the younger generation of leaders that can relate to and have sympathy come in with a style of gathering rather then scattering. It will happen, the internet is opening the eyes of us members and our leaders - our leaders will continue to pray to learn how we can adapt our style of converting, teaching, and retaining our people.

 

The church will explode in membership I can feel it, we already have the truth, its now just a matter of how we teach it.

  

PP, you do realize there isn't one sociologist who would agree with you?

  

So... even though churches who modernize and change to attract new members and ease up on their doctrine tend to collapse, you're right and I'm wrong?

  

and that is the problem with this world, everyone is too worried about what others think of them.

I could care less because my reality is not yours or that of some scientists.

 

The only approval that I seek is Gods, and since I have felt the Holy Ghost many of times in my life I know that he approves of me and my way of doing things. There are also many of times when I have felt the spirit withdrawn from my life and that is when I know he does not approve.

  

what are you talking about??

Your claim leaders should change the message has no historical safety.

[estradling75]

 Right, I was trying to make a bigger point. We're not a bunch of lawyers arguing on a logical matter-it's much deeper than that. I stand by the point I made, 100%. 

 

First you look at one thing. Am I morally pure or temple worthy? 

Then you look at another thing: Do I really, truly have a solid testimony? Am I emotionally prepared to leave home and deal with the real world? Can I suffer insults to my faith or attacks on it? 

 

The issues for choosing to go on a mission are huge. I'm glad I know myself enough to know that I wouldn't go one then, nor would I now. Does that make me a bad LDS? Of course not. Just a different one. 

 

You describe a textbook example (assuming the answer to one or more of your questions is no) of someone that failed in their priesthood duties to Prepare to serve.  Its seems pretty clear that someone who is not ready to serve probably should not serve, but that does not negate the fact that they still fell short in fulfilling this commandment.

[Guest MormonGator]

You describe a textbook example (assuming the answer to one or more of your questions is no) of someone that failed in their priesthood duties to Prepare to serve.  Its seems pretty clear that someone who is not ready to serve probably should not serve, but that does not negate the fact that they still fell short in fulfilling this commandment.

 I fundamentally disagree (but we've already determined that )  Just because I choose not to serve in an official role hardly means I am not prepared to serve at all.  But yes, I would answer no to a formal calling or mission service. The very good news is I am highly doubtful either calling will be put forward to me. 

 

I'm all for being prepared to serve but that doesn't mean everyone is cut out for an official mission. Also, being prepared to serve doesn't mean my personality type is applicable to all situations. 

Edited June 10, 2015 by MormonGator

[Backroads]

Why should it be left up to personal feel-goods void of any spiritual prompting and study whether or not a boy prepares and lives worthy to serve a mission? Yes, I'm being obtuse here, but it's the true perpective I'm getting from this discussion.