Mission service: Culture, or canon?

[priesthoodpower]

People don't go inactive because of truth spoken over the pulpit. No way. No how.

There is only one reason this lady and her son have a problem and were offended and were complaining, and it's not because of what the stake president did or did not say. It cuts through every word she writes as plain as day.

Pride.

 

It wasnt said over a pulpit to a variety of members, it was in a prospective elders class. When one of the young men in the group did not raise his hand, the comments that followed by the SP is obviously directed toward that one individual to make him feel guilty when in fact those comments did not need to be said at all.

 

Had this SP understood the new LDS curriculum of "Teaching in the Saviors way" he could have used this situation as an opportunity to change the heart of this young prospective elder instead of condemning him, lets see what the Savior would have done in this situation as according to LDS.org

--------------------------

https://www.lds.org/youth/learn/guidebook/teaching?lang=eng

 

He used the scriptures.. to teach and testify about His mission. He taught people to think about scriptures for themselves and use them to find answers to their own questions. Their hearts burned within them as He taught the word of God with power and authority, and they knew for themselves that the scriptures are true.

He knew who they were and who they could become. He found unique ways to help them learn and grow—ways meant just for them. When they struggled, He did not give up on them but continued to love them and minister to them.

He shared simple stories, parables, and real-life examples that made sense to them. He helped them discover gospel lessons in their own experiences and in the world around them.

He asked questions that caused them to think and feel deeply. He was sincerely interested in their answers and rejoiced in their expressions of faith. He gave them opportunities to ask their own questions and share their own insights, and He responded to their questions and listened to their experiences. Because of His love, they felt safe sharing their thoughts and personal feelings.

------------------------------

[Str8Shooter]

If the Spirit tells you to go on a full-time mission, then it is wise to go.  

 

If the Spirit tells you not to go on a full-time mission, then it is foolish to go on one.

 

If you're not going to listen to the Spirit, and what He says, then you should be focusing first and foremost on your own testimony building. 

 

 

If the Spirit tells you not to go on a full-time mission, it is foolish to listen to it because it would be an evil spirit.  

[Jane_Doe]

 

With all due respect, this is neither here nor there in regards to my question.

 

No offense taken, I'm sorry for not conveying my thoughts effectively.

 

I don't believe that simply being a Mormon teenager means you automatically have to serve a mission-- else it wouldn't be an act of service, would it?  I believe quite strongly that a call to serve should come from the Spirit, and that He does not have a formal-fulltime mission in store for everyone.  Some people are called to early marriage, to military, family obligations, or many of the other ways in which a person can serve the Lord and let the Gospel's light shine.  

 

One should follow the guidance of the Lord first and foremost.  If a person truly feels that the Lord is calling them on a full-time mission, then they should go!  And if they foolishly balk and choose to ignore the Lord's call [like Backroads was asking about], they will miss that magnificent opportunity to grow and stunt their relationship with the Lord.

 

If a person truly feels prompted that they are not to pursue a formal-fulltime mission (either not at all, or that they should wait a little while before leaving), then that person should likewise follow the Lord's counsel (there ARE such people).  And if the Lord says "wait" or "don't go", a young person might experience pressure from Mormon friends that impatiently say "but you can go right now, come on, don't you want to?"  While fellow church goers mean well, the young person's first duty is to listen to the Lord above all else.

 

And then you have young people whom, frankly, don't know how to recognize the spirit.  Such people should focus first-and-formost on developing their own spirituality.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 9, 2015 by Jane_Doe

[SpiritDragon]

It wasnt said over a pulpit to a variety of members, it was in a prospective elders class. When one of the young men in the group did not raise his hand, the comments that followed by the SP is obviously directed toward that one individual to make him feel guilty when in fact those comments did not need to be said at all.

 

Had this SP understood the new LDS curriculum of "Teaching in the Saviors way" he could have used this situation as an opportunity to change the heart of this young prospective elder instead of condemning him, lets see what the Savior would have done in this situation as according to LDS.org

--------------------------

https://www.lds.org/youth/learn/guidebook/teaching?lang=eng

 

He used the scriptures.. to teach and testify about His mission. He taught people to think about scriptures for themselves and use them to find answers to their own questions. Their hearts burned within them as He taught the word of God with power and authority, and they knew for themselves that the scriptures are true.

He knew who they were and who they could become. He found unique ways to help them learn and grow—ways meant just for them. When they struggled, He did not give up on them but continued to love them and minister to them.

He shared simple stories, parables, and real-life examples that made sense to them. He helped them discover gospel lessons in their own experiences and in the world around them.

He asked questions that caused them to think and feel deeply. He was sincerely interested in their answers and rejoiced in their expressions of faith. He gave them opportunities to ask their own questions and share their own insights, and He responded to their questions and listened to their experiences. Because of His love, they felt safe sharing their thoughts and personal feelings.

------------------------------

 

While I agree with the idea that this way of teaching is desirable and effective, it seems to me one-sided to say it is the only way the Saviour taught.  Those whose hearts burned within them were receptive to the spirit, others were not. Jesus wasn't one to pull punches on false teachings and hypocrisy. He is the same who made a whip and cleansed the temple.

[Vort]

I don't believe that simply being a Mormon teenager means you automatically have to serve a mission-- else it wouldn't be an act of service, would it?

 

Of course it would. Why wouldn't it?

Do you think my service to my wife, or hers to me, is less an act of service because we're supposed to serve each other?

[priesthoodpower]

While I agree with the idea that this way of teaching is desirable and effective, it seems to me one-sided to say it is the only way the Saviour taught.  Those whose hearts burned within them were receptive to the spirit, others were not. Jesus wasn't one to pull punches on false teachings and hypocrisy. He is the same who made a whip and cleansed the temple.

 

 

Jesus walked from town to town and encountered many different kinds of people who never heard of him nor believed in him.

 

In this particular thread we are talking about an LDS active member who grew up in the church, attends regularly and already has a testimony in Jesus Christ. By simply attending his church meetings he is showing humility and desire to edify his spirit by hearing the good word of the gospel. Because of his lack of desire to serve a mission are we supposed to condemn/ shame him and kick him out of our midst? The actions of his SP shows that.

[SpiritDragon]

Jesus walked from town to town and encountered many different kinds of people who never heard of him nor believed in him.

 

In this particular thread we are talking about an LDS active member who grew up in the church, attends regularly and already has a testimony in Jesus Christ. By simply attending his church meetings he is showing humility and desire to edify his spirit by hearing the good word of the gospel. Because of his lack of desire to serve a mission are we supposed to condemn/ shame him and kick him out of our midst? The actions of his SP shows that.

 

My perspective is that the Saviour was not always well received by those who should've been His followers because they didn't want to hear what he had to say. It threatened their position of power, or didn't fit their interpretation of scripture.

 

In this scenario we have a young man who is upset because he didn't want to hear he was supposed to go on a mission. I felt the same way until I humbled myself and let the spirit tell me to go. When I read the article I felt like the idea of the public shaming was being misinterpreted (but it's been a while since I read it and I'm not re-reading it now) - it seemed like the stake president asked for a show of hands to get an idea of who was planning to go on a mission. I think he was teaching a principle of choosing to serve the Lord whether it's convenient or not and that the show of hands wasn't meant to single anyone out, but to get the young men involved in the discussion a little and hopefully internalize the teachings more. How many times have you felt like a talk was targeted directly to you? I know I have on occasion and it's always been because I felt guilty and I didn't have to be singled out, I just plain felt like everyone knew and the speaker was looking at me. 

 

Here is an example from  1 Nephi 16 likened unto the situation:

 

1 And now it came to pass that after [the stake president], had made an end of speaking to [his] brethren, behold [some] said unto [him - or even whined to others without telling him]: Thou hast declared unto us hard things, more than we are able to bear.

2 And it came to pass that [the stake president could be justified in having] said unto them that [he] knew that [he] had spoken hard things against the wicked, according to the truth; and the righteous [has he] justified, and testified that they should be lifted up at the last day; wherefore, the guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very center.

3 And now my brethren, if ye were righteous and were willing to hearken to the truth, and give heed unto it, that ye might walk uprightly before God, then ye would not murmur because of the truth, and say: Thou speakest hard things against us.

4 And it came to pass that [the stake president] did exhort [his] brethren, with all diligence, to keep the commandments of the Lord

 

Absolutely everyone has individual agency to make decisions and act for themselves, but let us not cower behind blaming others for "our" actions. The stake president didn't force anyone out the church. He didn't stop the meeting and excommunicate anyone. He simply expressed the true principle that while we always have choices there are fundamentally always two paths - one that leads to God and one that doesn't. Was it hard to hear? I'm sure it was, but let's not blame the stake president for someone else's exercise of agency.

[classylady]

My perspective is that the Saviour was not always well received by those who should've been His followers because they didn't want to hear what he had to say. It threatened their position of power, or didn't fit their interpretation of scripture.

 

In this scenario we have a young man who is upset because he didn't want to hear he was supposed to go on a mission. I felt the same way until I humbled myself and let the spirit tell me to go. When I read the article I felt like the idea of the public shaming was being misinterpreted (but it's been a while since I read it and I'm not re-reading it now) - it seemed like the stake president asked for a show of hands to get an idea of who was planning to go on a mission. I think he was teaching a principle of choosing to serve the Lord whether it's convenient or not and that the show of hands wasn't meant to single anyone out, but to get the young men involved in the discussion a little and hopefully internalize the teachings more. How many times have you felt like a talk was targeted directly to you? I know I have on occasion and it's always been because I felt guilty and I didn't have to be singled out, I just plain felt like everyone knew and the speaker was looking at me. 

 

Here is an example from  1 Nephi 16 likened unto the situation:

 

1 And now it came to pass that after [the stake president], had made an end of speaking to [his] brethren, behold [some] said unto [him - or even whined to others without telling him]: Thou hast declared unto us hard things, more than we are able to bear.

2 And it came to pass that [the stake president could be justified in having] said unto them that [he] knew that [he] had spoken hard things against the wicked, according to the truth; and the righteous [has he] justified, and testified that they should be lifted up at the last day; wherefore, the guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very center.

3 And now my brethren, if ye were righteous and were willing to hearken to the truth, and give heed unto it, that ye might walk uprightly before God, then ye would not murmur because of the truth, and say: Thou speakest hard things against us.

4 And it came to pass that [the stake president] did exhort [his] brethren, with all diligence, to keep the commandments of the Lord

 

Absolutely everyone has individual agency to make decisions and act for themselves, but let us not cower behind blaming others for "our" actions. The stake president didn't force anyone out the church. He didn't stop the meeting and excommunicate anyone. He simply expressed the true principle that while we always have choices there are fundamentally always two paths - one that leads to God and one that doesn't. Was it hard to hear? I'm sure it was, but let's not blame the stake president for someone else's exercise of agency.

 

Love this^^

 

I was thinking along those same lines, but you beat me to it.

 

My husband turned down a call to go on a mission.  He says he didn't like how the bishop just assumed he was going to go when he was called into the bishop's office for an interview.  Pride, on my husband's part?  Most likely. And, my husband has regretted that decision not to go, to this day.  He made some regrettable decisions, that if he had served his mission, he most likely would not have made.  And he is still paying the consequences for those decisions, that also affect me and his children.

 

As for me, when my bishop called me in just prior to my 21st birthday, and asked me about serving a mission, I knew I was supposed to serve, but I didn't especially want to.  A mission would mess up my plan of finishing school and getting married (even though there was no one I was particularly interested in marrying at the time). My patriarchal blessing specifically mentions that I would serve a mission.  But, at that time I wanted to believe that it would be as a senior couple with my husband.  But, I knew the Lord had a plan for me to serve, so I went.  It was a wonderful experience.

 

I met many missionaries who at first weren't so sure they wanted to be out on a mission.  But, for most of them, as time went on, and they experienced feeling the Spirit, and actually bringing people the "glad message", and the joy it brought their contacts, they had a change of heart.  Their mission did become "the best two years", albeit very trying at times.  Many of our young missionaries go out with a belief of the gospel but come back with more than just belief.  They return home fully committed and have experienced spiritual experiences they cannot deny.  If they return from their mission having only one convert, and that convert is their self, then the mission was successful.

[priesthoodpower]

Many of our young missionaries go out with a belief of the gospel but come back with more than just belief.  They return home fully committed and have experienced spiritual experiences they cannot deny.  If they return from their mission having only one convert, and that convert is their self, then the mission was successful.

 

 

This describes my mission back in 1998 to a " T ". I left believing and returned KNOWING.

 My older brother and 4 older cousins all went on their missions on their own free will with no pressure from parents,

 

- my older brother went inactive 4 years after returning, him and his then LDS wife are no longer mormons.

 

- 1 cousin went inactive 5 years after returning and is now living a swinger and alcoholic lifestyle with his non-member wife

 

- 1 cousin went inactive 2 years after his temple marriage and is struggling in his marriage (3 kids) while also being addicted to pills and alcohol, they got divorced once but got back together.

 

- 1 cousin is seperated from his wife and 4 kids, living in a different state but still supporting and visiting his family, he is less active but still loves the church

 

- 1 cousin married in the temple and had 4 kids, and after 11 years they got divorced. they are both inactive and in new relationships with non-members.

 

- My wife served a mission and then served 10 years of our married life in primary until eventually leaving the church two years ago.

 

 

....despite all of their physicall shortcomings all the above relatives of mine have expressed one common theme to why they slowly went inactive, THE PRESSURES AND GUILT OF NOT BEING GOOD ENOUGH. One of my cousins has no intention of returning but every one else has the potential to return should the church be more accepting of all people and not just the perfect ones. You may not agree with that statement but like I said in a previous post, its not what the leaders say that describes the church, its what the members say. case and point..."and Im a mormon" campaigns, the church spends millions to run these campaigns and maintain its internet presence along with their many websites...lds.org etc.... The brand of a company is not controlled by the board members, its controlled by the consumers.

 

"Meet the mormons" featured normal mormon families in the world and not our PR team from church headquarters trying to sell our religion. If the message that we are trying to send out in social media and the mainstream is about accepting all people of all races and backgrounds then I will bet that our teaching within the church will soon reflect that.

 

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.

Edited June 9, 2015 by priesthoodpower

[Windseeker]

 

 

This describes my mission back in 1998 to a " T ". I left believing and returned KNOWING.

 My older brother and 4 older cousins all went on their missions on their own free will with no pressure from parents,

 

- my older brother went inactive 4 years after returning, him and his then LDS wife are no longer mormons.

 

- 1 cousin went inactive 5 years after returning and is now living a swinger and alcoholic lifestyle with his non-member wife

 

- 1 cousin went inactive 2 years after his temple marriage and is struggling in his marriage (3 kids) while also being addicted to pills and alcohol, they got divorced once but got back together.

 

- 1 cousin is seperated from his wife and 4 kids, living in a different state but still supporting and visiting his family, he is less active but still loves the church

 

- 1 cousin married in the temple and had 4 kids, and after 11 years they got divorced. they are both inactive and in new relationships with non-members.

 

- My wife served a mission and then served 10 years of our married life in primary until eventually leaving the church two years ago.

 

 

....despite all of their physicall shortcomings all the above relatives of mine have expressed one common theme to why they slowly went inactive, THE PRESSURES AND GUILT OF NOT BEING GOOD ENOUGH. One of my cousins has no intention of returning but every one else has the potential to return should the church be more accepting of all people and not just the perfect ones. You may not agree with that statement but like I said in a previous post, its not what the leaders say that describes the church, its what the members say. case and point..."and Im a momon" campaigns. The brand of a company is not controlled by the board members, its controlled by the consumers.

 

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.

 

I think everyone can relate to the feeling of not being good enough. Living the gospel certainly is not easy, and members in general could work on showing more compassion, sensitivity and propriety when dealing with each other. 

 

I reread this article and standby my first post in that I think the authors attitude had more to do with her son leaving the Church then this councilman's comment.

 

It was a councilman..a member of the Stake Presidency NOT the Stake President btw. Not that it makes much difference.

 

Having been blessed with my situation..heheh..it's given me the insight to see that it's just as difficult, perhaps more so in some cases, for our young men to not serve missions and remain active in the Church then it is to go on full time missions. There is so much temptation at that age, and not having the structure and protection and activity a mission brings coupled with having to suffer (the sometimes well meaning sometimes not) reactions and comments on regular basis can make remaining active in the Church challenging to say the least. 

 

Since a young mans decision to not serve is so obvious, perhaps one solution would be to level the playing field and as each member enters the building we could hand out scarlet letters for the commandments everyone is breaking. You know...scarlet "PT" for partial tithe payer, "P" for pornography, "NH" for neglected hometeaching, "NF" for neglected family home evening...etc then we could all be inspired to lovingly encourage each other to not be on "Satans Side".  

 

In truth, I'm grateful for my Ward it's leadership and our Stake President. We literally hear something each Sunday about missions. While I know it irritates my boys sometimes, if they ever bring it up to me, I confirm that I know it's because people care. They seem to have accepted this. The ward leadership have kept them engaged and active with callings and they have been good about fulfilling those. If either of them leave the Church they can't say it's because people didn't think they were good enough. They know that every member has their own sins to worry about and that the comments they endure are all well-meaning. So for the most part I love our members and I honestly appreciate their efforts, though clumsy and lacking tact at times, to reach out and encourage these boys to do the right thing.

[The Folk Prophet]

 

 

This describes my mission back in 1998 to a " T ". I left believing and returned KNOWING.

 My older brother and 4 older cousins all went on their missions on their own free will with no pressure from parents,

 

- my older brother went inactive 4 years after returning, him and his then LDS wife are no longer mormons.

 

- 1 cousin went inactive 5 years after returning and is now living a swinger and alcoholic lifestyle with his non-member wife

 

- 1 cousin went inactive 2 years after his temple marriage and is struggling in his marriage (3 kids) while also being addicted to pills and alcohol, they got divorced once but got back together.

 

- 1 cousin is seperated from his wife and 4 kids, living in a different state but still supporting and visiting his family, he is less active but still loves the church

 

- 1 cousin married in the temple and had 4 kids, and after 11 years they got divorced. they are both inactive and in new relationships with non-members.

 

- My wife served a mission and then served 10 years of our married life in primary until eventually leaving the church two years ago.

 

 

....despite all of their physicall shortcomings all the above relatives of mine have expressed one common theme to why they slowly went inactive, THE PRESSURES AND GUILT OF NOT BEING GOOD ENOUGH. One of my cousins has no intention of returning but every one else has the potential to return should the church be more accepting of all people and not just the perfect ones. You may not agree with that statement but like I said in a previous post, its not what the leaders say that describes the church, its what the members say. case and point..."and Im a mormon" campaigns, the church spends millions to run these campaigns and maintain its internet presence along with their many websites...lds.org etc.... The brand of a company is not controlled by the board members, its controlled by the consumers.

 

"Meet the mormons" featured normal mormon families in the world and not our PR team from church headquarters trying to sell our religion. If the message that we are trying to send out in social media and the mainstream is about accepting all people of all races and backgrounds then I will bet that our teaching within the church will soon reflect that.

 

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.

 

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

[Windseeker]

[Backroads]

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

[omegaseamaster75]

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

LOL.... I think that he did

[Just_A_Guy]

I'm not fond of the public-shaming approach supposedly taken by the SP member in the FMH post.  On the other hand . . .

 

I remember as a fresh RM at a BYU ward, a member of our bishopric came in to instruct our elders' quorum.  He asked for a show of hands as to who had been on a date in the past week, then said "OK, and the rest of you--what is your excuse?"  He spent the next forty-five minutes lighting into us about the importance of marriage, importance of respecting the sisters in our ward, et cetera.

 

The idea of publicly calling priesthood holders out for their indiscretions, goes all the way back to Joseph Smith.  It is still--at least, on a collective basis--a hallmark of our general priesthood meetings.  And the idea of standing up for your beliefs and affirming your testimony/revelations amongst a potentially hostile audience, is even more pervasive in the Church.  If the young man in the FMH post has truly received a revelation that he shouldn't serve a mission, why does he lack the moral backbone to say "President, I appreciate your concern, but I have received a revelation that the Lord has a different plan for me.  I've discussed it with my bishop and I'll be happy to discuss it with you, too--after this meeting."  Have our young men (at least, the ones aged 16+) really become such delicate flowers that they can't publicly hold fast to the light and knowledge they think God has already given them?  And if they have, then isn't this exactly why they should serve missions, so that they can cultivate that particular skill set?

 

The FMH screed strikes me as typical pseudo-intellectual argument:  Dwell on a minority of scenarios where the Church's general policy doesn't work perfectly, compare it to bizarrely unlikely and increasingly hypothetical scenarios where some bat-shizzle crazy proposal might work better, and completely ignore the majority of scenarios where the Church's existing general policy works just fine

[unixknight]

We're always told that you are prompted by the Spirit when called on a mission.  

 

That implies that some are NOT called, and the only person who knows for sure one way or the other is the person in question.  If it's expected that EVERYBODY will do it, then the prompting would seem unnecessary.  If it's necessary, then not everyone is meant to do it.  

 

Can't have it both ways.

 

Serving a mission should not be used as a litmus test for a "good Mormon."  I didn't join the Church into well into my adulthood and already had a family.  I haven't been prompted to go.  Would that make me a bad Mormon or do I get a pass because I happened not to be baptized until after it was "too late?"

[Guest MormonGator]

We're always told that you are prompted by the Spirit when called on a mission.  

 

That implies that some are NOT called, and the only person who knows for sure one way or the other is the person in question.  If it's expected that EVERYBODY will do it, then the prompting would seem unnecessary.  If it's necessary, then not everyone is meant to do it.  

 

Can't have it both ways.

 

Serving a mission should not be used as a litmus test for a "good Mormon."  I didn't join the Church into well into my adulthood and already had a family.  I haven't been prompted to go.  Would that make me a bad Mormon or do I get a pass because I happened not to be baptized until after it was "too late?"

 AMEN! 

 

Blunt statement:I'm just as Mormon as we all are, and I would never, ever serve a mission. Nor would I accept a calling anymore than making bulletins or something like that. Don't get wrong-I do my home teaching and go out with the missionaries frequently. I also do service projects with the church so it's not like I'm anti social or anything. 

 

That said, there is no way I'd cover my tattoos, cut my hair, not listen to metal/punk and keep up with video games and sports scores. Missionaries have to do so much at such a young age. 

[unixknight]

That said, there is no way I'd cover my tattoos, cut my hair, not listen to metal/punk and keep up with video games and sports scores. Missionaries have to do so much at such a young age. 

 

I like the cut of your jib, sir.

 

Wow, another Mormon with ink... Never expected that.  I got mine after I joined the Church but I figure it's okay 'cause the tattoo artist who applied it is a Quaker... so it all balances.  

[Guest MormonGator]

I like the cut of your jib, sir.

 

Wow, another Mormon with ink... Never expected that.  I got mine after I joined the Church but I figure it's okay 'cause the tattoo artist who applied it is a Quaker... so it all balances.  

 We're out there brother.  :)

 

In some ways you and I have a duty to reach out to others like us-I'm sure I don't need to tell you that most of our friends will not open up to a guy in a suit. It's our job to preach Mormonism to them. 

Edited June 9, 2015 by MormonGator

[Vort]

We're always told that you are prompted by the Spirit when called on a mission.  

 

That implies that some are NOT called, and the only person who knows for sure one way or the other is the person in question.  If it's expected that EVERYBODY will do it, then the prompting would seem unnecessary.  If it's necessary, then not everyone is meant to do it.  

 

Can't have it both ways.

 

Both could well be true.

 

I never felt "prompted by the Spirit" or "called" to missionary work. Rather, I grew up knowing that it was my duty, and it was simply assumed (by myself and my family) that I would serve a mission.

 

Why didn't I "feel prompted"? Possibly (likely) because I lacked the spiritual sensitivity to feel it. Thank God I knew my duty, and did not have to depend on my non-existent spiritual sensitivity to inform me that I needed to serve a mission!

 

Every young LDS man should prepare himself to serve a mission. Every one. No exceptions. Where, how, and whether he actually serves that mission is for his leaders to determine, but his duty is to prepare himself to serve.

 

It really is just that simple.

[The Folk Prophet]

We're always told that you are prompted by the Spirit when called on a mission.  

 

We are?

[Guest MormonGator]

 

 

It really is just that simple.

It's actually incredibly complex. I felt very, very forced to remain Catholic (the religion of my family) even though I really didn't believe it. If they had missions I can guarantee I would have been forced/asked to go and I would have against my will. That's awful. It's a very serious calling and only should be done by those who truly feel the spirit.  

[Vort]

It's actually incredibly complex. I felt very, very forced to remain Catholic (the religion of my family) even though I really didn't believe it. If they had missions I can guarantee I would have been forced/asked to go and I would have against my will. That's awful. It's a very serious calling and only should be done by those who truly feel the spirit.  

 

If that were the case, then I never would have gone. And that would have been a tragic void in my life.

 

I see nothing wrong with serving a mission because you feel it's your duty. I can't figure out why that would be seen as a negative. Don't we WANT our sons to do their duty?

[The Folk Prophet]

...and only should be done by those who truly feel the spirit.  

 

Which should be every young LDS male. What's so complicated about that?

[Guest MormonGator]

If that were the case, then I never would have gone. And that would have been a tragic void in my life.

 

I see nothing wrong with serving a mission because you feel it's your duty. I can't figure out why that would be seen as a negative. Don't we WANT our sons to do their duty?

And that's where we sharply disagree and won't ever agree. 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.

Edited June 9, 2015 by MormonGator