Mission service: Culture, or canon?


Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

As had been clearly stated, it was not a duty then. No one can honestly claim that someone did not do their duty when such a duty was not yet assigned. Stating such is entirely disingenuous.

 

The idea that this is something that changed makes no sense to me.  The quote you provided earlier didn't strike me as new information, but rather an explanation of what already was expected.  The call to go on missions occurs at least as far back as the New Testament.  President Monson isn't THAT old...  ^_^

 

It's the impression I'm getting from some in this thread. If serving a mission is no preisthood duty and the Spirit only inspires a few to go, then clearly most missionaries only go because of cultural pressure. Is this not what the OP blog was about?

 

I think you're right about the question posed by the OP, but I don't think anyone's saying it isn't a priesthood duty, but rather that it isn't as universal as some are saying.  I don't think the Spirit inspires "only a few," but I also don't think EVERYONE is meant to go, either.  In those cases, I'm not prepared to cast judgments on people who know what the Spirit is prompting them to do better than I.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you're right about the question posed by the OP, but I don't think anyone's saying it isn't a priesthood duty, but rather that it isn't as universal as some are saying.  I don't think the Spirit inspires "only a few," but I also don't think EVERYONE is meant to go, either.  In those cases, I'm not prepared to cast judgments on people who know what the Spirit is prompting them to do better than I.

 

The duty is to prepare oneself to go on a mission and to make oneself available. Whether the Church and its leaders avail themselves of your services is another matter entirely. But for an unmarried young man to refuse to make himself worthy to serve a mission or to otherwise unilaterally make the determination "I have decided that I am not going to serve a mission" is a rejection of his Priesthood duty. If you grant that full-time missionary service is a Priesthood duty, I do not see how you can reject this.

 

As for condemning people, no one on this thread has done that. This is about recognizing right and wrong actions and about being true to Priesthood duties. Personal judgment and condemnation are God's, so in most cases we avoid doing so. That doesn't mean we abandon any pretense of being able to identify right from wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea that this is something that changed makes no sense to me.  

 

Whatever man. You asked for the first time or original source of when going on a mission became a priesthood duty as declared by our prophet. That was it. 1974. Whether it makes sense to you or not, prior to that time no prophet had every declared bluntly or otherwise that every young man was called to serve. Since that time, every prophet has declared, clearly and plainly, just that:

 

Ezra T. Benson:

“The Lord wants every young man to serve a full-time mission. Currently, only a fifth of the eligible young men in the Church are serving full-time missions. This is not pleasing to the Lord. We can do better. We must do better. Not only should a mission be regarded as a priesthood duty, but every young man should look forward to this experience with great joy and anticipation. What a privilege—what a sacred privilege—to serve the Lord full time for two years with all your heart, might, mind, and strength.

 

"You can do nothing more important. School can wait. Scholarships can be deferred. Occupational goals can be postponed. Yes, even temple marriage should wait until after a young man has served an honorable full-time mission for the Lord.” (Ensign, May 1986, pp. 44–45).

 

Howard W. Hunter:

“Earlier prophets have taught that every able, worthy young man should serve a full-time mission. I emphasize this need today” (Howard W. Hunter, “Follow the Son of God”, Ensign, Nov. 1994, 87).

 

Gordon B. Hinkley:

“I throw out a challenge to every young man within this vast congregation tonight. Prepare yourself now to be worthy to serve the Lord as a full-time missionary. He has said, ‘If ye are prepared ye shall not fear’ (D&C 38:30). Prepare to consecrate two years of your lives to this sacred service. That will in effect constitute a tithe on the first twenty years of your lives” (Conference Report, Sept.–Oct. 1995, 70; or Ensign, Nov. 1995, 51–52).

 

Thomas S. Monson

“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. Young men, I admonish you to prepare for service as a missionary. Keep yourselves clean and pure and worthy to represent the Lord” (President Thomas S. Monson, As We Meet Together Again, October 2010).

 

You can interpret things or understand things however you want. That's your business. But the plain start of the prophets declaring missions a duty for every young man was 1974 by Spencer W. Kimball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea that this is something that changed makes no sense to me.  The quote you provided earlier didn't strike me as new information, but rather an explanation of what already was expected.  The call to go on missions occurs at least as far back as the New Testament.  President Monson isn't THAT old...  ^_^

 

 

 

Here is the top results for searching Every Young Man Should serve a  Mission from LDS.org

(https://www.lds.org/search?lang=eng&query=every+young+man+should+serve+a+mission)

 

First one  https://www.lds.org/manual/aaronic-priesthood-manual-3/lesson-25-every-young-man-should-serve-a-mission?lang=eng  Direct Quote from it  President Spencer W. Kimball said:

“The question is frequently asked: Should every young man fill a mission? And the answer has been given by the Lord. It is ‘Yes.’ Every young man should fill a mission. …

“… Every man should also pay his tithing. Every man should observe the Sabbath. Every man should attend his meetings. Every man should marry in the temple” (“When the World Will Be Converted,” Ensign, Oct. 1974, p. 8).

 

Second one 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2006/04/now-is-the-time-to-serve-a-mission?lang=eng

 

Direct Quote from it 

The process begins in the home long before missionary age when parents instill in the minds and hearts of every young boy the concept of “when I go on a mission,” not “if I go on a mission.” Children are best taught gospel truths in the home where instruction can be adapted to the age and capacity of each child.

 

 

As for it changing when my Dad served it was optional... When I served it was not.  Seems President Kimball is speaking very clearly that it is not.  I did not check to see if prophets before him also make such statements or not did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The duty is to prepare oneself to go on a mission and to make oneself available. Whether the Church and its leaders avail themselves of your services is another matter entirely. But for an unmarried young man to refuse to make himself worthy to serve a mission or to otherwise unilaterally make the determination "I have decided that I am not going to serve a mission" is a rejection of his Priesthood duty. If you grant that full-time missionary service is a Priesthood duty, I do not see how you can reject this.

 

Who has said anything about young men not making themselves worthy?  I don't recall anyone making that point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator

Who has said anything about young men not making themselves worthy?  I don't recall anyone making that point.

I think it's best if you and I agree to disagree with everyone and move on. I love hearing everyones thoughts on the matter and I learn so much when I disagree with people, but that can only go so far. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's best if you and I agree to disagree with everyone and move on. I love hearing everyones thoughts on the matter and I learn so much when I disagree with people, but that can only go so far. 

 

Yeah you're right.  Thanks for the discussion everyone  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who has said anything about young men not making themselves worthy?  I don't recall anyone making that point.

 

People have said that the young man himself decides whether he has the duty to serve a mission. This is false. The duty exists whether the young man acknowledges it or not. The young man is not justified in refusing missionary service just because he has decided he doesn't want to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People have said that the young man himself decides whether he has the duty to serve a mission. This is false. The duty exists whether the young man acknowledges it or not. The young man is not justified in refusing missionary service just because he has decided he doesn't want to go.

 

Since I asked the question you're responding to here I'll just point out real quick that, again, nobody's defending the idea of not going "just because he doesn't want to" as far as I can tell.  I sure haven't.

 

On that note I will head out.  I have a few thousand lines of Java code that ain't gonna test themselves  ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since I asked the question you're responding to here I'll just point out real quick that, again, nobody's defending the idea of not going "just because he doesn't want to" as far as I can tell.  I sure haven't.

 

On that note I will head out.  I have a few thousand lines of Java code that ain't gonna test themselves  ;)

If you do get back, there are 8 pages of this thread and I have not read all of them. But, from what I have read, I didn't quite catch what it is you were trying to say about missions...

You said you didn't go because you got baptized at 25 years old which gave you only a few months before you got aged out. But, let's say for instance you got baptized when you were 18. Would you have gone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there is a major problem with many young men in society in general. Fewer are attending college, many are staying longer in the parents' home, many are delaying marriage, many are getting hooked on video games and porn, many are reluctant to take on any responsibilities whatsoever. 

 

This is now affecting the Church, as well. Young men are delaying missions or choosing not to serve. A large number go inactive, rather than seek a spiritual conversion and accept the responsibilities.

 

Young men should not serve for solely cultural or social reasons. But they should learn to step above the world and find the spiritual witness that will move them to serve.

 

I joined when I was 16 of my own volition.  The gospel answered a lot of questions of life for me. When I met Elder S. Dilworth Young (presidency of the 70), who asked me if I was planning on serving a mission - something I never before was asked, nor had I considered - the answer was easy.  I promised him I would serve, because I had/have a testimony of the prophets and servants of God, and I knew this is what God would have me do.  Such requires accepting a witness and the responsibility of carrying that witness into the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I joined when I was 16 of my own volition.  The gospel answered a lot of questions of life for me. When I met Elder S. Dilworth Young (presidency of the 70), who asked me if I was planning on serving a mission - something I never before was asked, nor had I considered - the answer was easy.  I promised him I would serve, because I had/have a testimony of the prophets and servants of God, and I knew this is what God would have me do.  Such requires accepting a witness and the responsibility of carrying that witness into the world.

You said yes to service because you had/have a testimony of the prophets.

 

While it is a priesthood duty would anyone advise a young man to go if he didn't have this testimony?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vort, et al,

 

Yes, it is a Rame sighting. I've been busy in different/other venues, such as Millennial Star blog. Thought I'd stop by more often here if I can.

 

If a young man does not have a testimony, or at least a desire to believe, he should not serve a mission.  Even a weak testimony may be strengthened on a mission. However, preparation makes a big difference on whether a young man has a successful mission or not. It determines whether his mission will be to refine him, or so he can bless and refine others.  Mission presidents hope for the latter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While it is a priesthood duty would anyone advise a young man to go if he didn't have this testimony?

 

It is the young man's Priesthood duty to prepare himself to serve a mission. If he is not prepared, including having enough of a testimony or at least hopeful belief to go, then he has failed that aspect of his duty.

 

(And yes, I would most certainly advise a young man who thinks he has no testimony to do his duty and put in his papers, being perfectly transparent with his bishop and stake president about his self-perceived state of spiritual maturity. The duty has never been represented as "Prepare to serve a full-time mission, unless you don't think you want to.")

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel compelled to quote D&C section 4:

 

Now behold, a marvelous work is about to come forth among the children of men.

 Therefore, O ye that embark in the service of God, see that ye serve him with all your heart, might, mind and strength, that ye may stand blameless before God at the last day.

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

 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;

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

 Remember faith, virtue, knowledge, temperance,patience, brotherly kindness, godliness, charity, humility,diligence.

 Ask, and ye shall receive; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. Amen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is the young man's Priesthood duty to prepare himself to serve a mission. If he is not prepared, including having enough of a testimony or at least hopeful belief to go, then he has failed that aspect of his duty.

 

 

If everything is so black and white and leads us to believe that the Kid has failed his priesthood duty to PREPARE for his mission.

 

Then we must dig deeper and look at his nursery leaders, primary leaders, youth leaders, parents, bishopric as all failures for not helping the Kid be prepared. His hometeachers for not visiting every month for the 18 years of his life, his parents for not feeding the missionarys once a month for 18 yrs allowing for the shinning example of having elders/sisters in the home.

 

As much as we call this newer generation of kids more idle and lazy, are a bunch of parents that accept less responsibility and more absence in their kids lives. You didnt have to buy that xbox which resulted in your kid being a gamer.

 

Dont put all the blame on the kid and call him a failure, or as a "follower of Satan" as stated in the OP.

 

As much as our kids go to school and face peer pressure to do bad things, they do come to church and are supposed to receive the peer encouragement of preparing and serving a mission, if that influence was not strong enough to convince him to make the decision of serving a mission then the entire ward failed him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If everything is so black and white and leads us to believe that the Kid has failed his priesthood duty to PREPARE for his mission.

 

Then we must dig deeper and look at his nursery leaders, primary leaders, youth leaders, parents, bishopric as all failures for not helping the Kid be prepared. His hometeachers for not visiting every month for the 18 years of his life, his parents for not feeding the missionarys once a month for 18 yrs allowing for the shinning example of having elders/sisters in the home.

 

As much as we call this newer generation of kids more idle and lazy, are a bunch of parents that accept less responsibility and more absence in their kids lives. You didnt have to buy that xbox which resulted in your kid being a gamer.

 

Dont put all the blame on the kid and call him a failure, or as a "follower of Satan" as stated in the OP.

 

As much as our kids go to school and face peer pressure to do bad things, they do come to church and are supposed to receive the peer encouragement of preparing and serving a mission, if that influence was not strong enough to convince him to make the decision of serving a mission then the entire ward failed him.

 

I don't disagree with anything you wrote.

 

But the bottom line is: A young adult Latter-day Saint man who has not prepared himself for missionary service has not fulfilled his duty to God. Period.

 

It is pretty much black and white. Any "gray area" affects perhaps one young man in ten thousand. Sure, there are young men who, through no fault of their own, suffer from emotional dysfunction or mental disease or debilitating illness. But these, too, should prepare themselves for full-time missionary service, until such a time as their leaders tell them that they are excused from that duty.

 

This is not a matter of condemnation. It is a matter of definition. That's what it means when we say that full-time missionary service is a "Priesthood duty".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dont put all the blame on the kid and call him a failure, or as a "follower of Satan" as stated in the OP.

 

Okay, I was mistaken. I do in fact disagree with this.

 

The OP, Eowyn, said no such thing. She did link to the even-looking-at-it-makes-me-feel-like-I-need-to-go-take-a-shower FMH site, which did make such a claim. Assuming you are willing to believe anything that site has to say -- which I am not -- even the quotation the whining author made to support her assertion says no such thing:

 

“You have to choose what side you’re on. It’s very clear. If you’re not choosing the Lord by going on a mission, then you’re choosing to be on Satan’s side. It’s that simple.”

 

This is not saying anyone is a "follower of Satan", as your quotation suggests. Rather, it is stating the (rather obvious) principle that, since Satan desires that people disobey God, if you don't obey God, you are doing as Satan wishes. Which, let's be honest, should be met with a resounding "Duh".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I was mistaken. I do in fact disagree with this.

 

The OP, Eowyn, said no such thing. She did link to the even-looking-at-it-makes-me-feel-like-I-need-to-go-take-a-shower FMH site, which did make such a claim. Assuming you are willing to believe anything that site has to say -- which I am not -- even the quotation the whining author made to support her assertion says no such thing:

 

“You have to choose what side you’re on. It’s very clear. If you’re not choosing the Lord by going on a mission, then you’re choosing to be on Satan’s side. It’s that simple.”

 

This is not saying anyone is a "follower of Satan", as your quotation suggests. Rather, it is stating the (rather obvious) principle that, since Satan desires that people disobey God, if you don't obey God, you are doing as Satan wishes. Which, let's be honest, should be met with a resounding "Duh".

 

 

I know OP = original poster, but I was lazy and hoping that everyone in this thread would understand it as Original Post, which would of course lead to the linked website where the said quote resided.

 

the exact quote does state..""..if you’re not choosing the Lord by going on a mission, then you’re choosing to be on Satan’s side. It’s that simple.”", so yes I did misquote. In my defense I did use that quote properly on page 7, this time i was lazy and didnt want to go back to the website.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

During President Monson time it wasn't a commandment like it is now.  So if you came of age during that time it is a perfectly acceptable answer.

 

But if you came of age after that....  Then that statement is like saying "Well living the law of Moses was good enough for Christ while he was alive... Clearly I don't need to live that whole gospel thing that came later."

Apparently it wasnt as important back then as it is now. I get there was a war going on, but what makes it the thing to do back then and now the young men of this church are discouraged (by making the mission the only acceptable option) from serving their country in a time of war? We have been in a war for 13 yrs now and it is just getting started. 

That aside, he joined and was not drafted. Served about a year or so and then went to school and got married. Plenty of time to serve a mission.

I have no problem with the choice he made, but it is funny how now it is absolutely the wrong thing to do.

 

Edited by paracaidista508
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So where exactly does the path lead when one does not serve a mission?

 

Rebellion is a very clear path... and I think you know exactly were a person will end up if they continue on a path of rebellion against God

 

Apparently it wasnt as important back then as it is now. I get there was a war going on, but what makes it the thing to do back then and now the young men of this church are discouraged (by making the mission the only acceptable option) from serving their country in a time of war? We have been in a war for 13 yrs now and it is just getting started. 

That aside, he joined and was not drafted. Served about a year or so and then went to school and got married. Plenty of time to serve a mission.

I have no problem with the choice he made, but it is funny how now it is absolutely the wrong thing to do.

 

 

Indeed it is interesting.  Not that long ago they announced it was time to lower the missionary age aka "Hastening the Work."  Before that they announced then tightening down of the missionary worthiness requirement. (aka don't send them out into the field hoping it would fix them).  And of course we are discussing the change from "its an option" to "every young man should"

 

To me it seems clear that the Lord through is prophets are telling us to step up both the quality and the quantity of the full time missionaries.  We can speculate for a very long time on why the Lord might do this and not get any closer to knowing (and thus being able to answer your question)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share