Mission service: Culture, or canon?

[estradling75]

 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. 

 

So you fundamentally disagree with the commands and instructions give us by the men called of God as leaders of the church?

 

That is your call of course.  But I have to say when they council, advise, and direct, so clearly and so consistently... I personally think that is a very strong sign that I should bring myself in to harmony with them rather then struggle to do it my way.

[Backroads]

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.

So why bother making a mission a priesthood duty?

[Guest MormonGator]

So you fundamentally disagree with the commands and instructions give us by the men called of God as leaders of the church?

 

 

 No I disagree with everyone else's view here on formal missionary service. That's it. 

Edited June 10, 2015 by MormonGator

[Guest MormonGator]

So why bother making a mission a priesthood duty?

 Frankly that's a great question. 

[Backroads]

To return to the op a bit, I can't help but think a generous allowance of serve-only-if-you-want will only further contribute to any mission culture. Missions will certainly become a culture in some areas while not serving will become culture in others. This is not order.

[estradling75]

 No I disagree with everyone else's view here on formal missionary service. That's it. 

 

 

But we are not giving your "our" view...  We are telling you the view of the Prophets of God...  You are not disagreeing with us (or just us) you are disagreeing with the Word of God as delivered by his leaders.

[Backroads]

Frankly that's a great question.

So let's start with what we know. It is a priesthood duty. It has exceptions, but priesthood holders of a certain age group are expected to prepare to serve. Why is this wrong or right?

[estradling75]

So let's start with what we know. It is a priesthood duty. It has exceptions, but priesthood holders of a certain age group are expected to prepare to serve. Why is this wrong or right?

 

Lets further break down the prepare to serve...  Can anyone think of anything person should do to prepare to serve.. that should not be done anyways even if one does not go on a mission?   Off the top of my head I can't think of anything that one might do to prepare for a mission that doesn't fall in the "everyone should do it anyway"

[Backroads]

Lets further break down the prepare to serve... Can anyone think of anything person should do to prepare to serve.. that should not be done anyways even if one does not go on a mission? Off the top of my head I can't think of anything that one might do to prepare for a mission that doesn't fall in the "everyone should do it anyway"

Complete agreement.

Yet, if I can do all the things to be a good person as well as serve a mission, why do I need to serve a mission? I'm already a decent Mormon as far as Mormons go. Will a mission really make me significantly better in a way a number of activities wouldn't? What good would checking off this particular priesthood box really do in the grand scheme of things?

How does this compare to a duty to br fulfilled if possible?

(Note Backroads is speaking in generalities as she is not a priesthood holder.)

Edited June 10, 2015 by Backroads

[estradling75]

Complete agreement.

Yet, if I can do all the things to be a good person as well as serve a mission, why do I need to serve a mission? I'm already a decent Mormon as far as Mormons go. Will a mission really make me significantly better in a way a number of activities wouldn't? What good would checking off this particular priesthood box really do in the grand scheme of things?

 

 

Because God commands it.  If you are prepared then it becomes a clear case of agency.  Are we going to do what the Lord commands (and pass the test) or are we going to do our own things (and fail the test).

 

The whole point of our lives is to face tests like this.  Going on a mission probably will not be the first one you face and hopefully it will not be the last one, but don't mistake the fact that one can repent with some kind of idea that we should not try.

[priesthoodpower]

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

Im sorry if I havent made myself clear in previous posts but my claims are that the style of teaching and delivering the message needs to evolve/ adapt, not the message itself, and I was quite cautious of not saying anything about doctrine.

This is all in referenece to the op's post about a Stake President councilman that could have been more mindful in a particular setting when proclaiming the commandment of missionary work  "..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.” - was this done in some way to scare the kid into changing his mind? well I think it was not said in righteousness because Christ would have approached it differently - https://www.lds.org/youth/learn/guidebook/teaching?lang=eng

 

I also shared a personal story of my 10yr old girls primary teacher who said "Every church except for the LDS church is the devils church."

 

Both of the above said statements Im not disagreeing with, but I am disagreeing with the delivery - which I also go on to proclaim (in my own opinion) is a generational mentality of those (older) leaders. Which is also why I said that I look forward to a new generation of future leaders to come up in the ranks.

 

 

To return to the op a bit, I can't help but think a generous allowance of serve-only-if-you-want will only further contribute to any mission culture. Missions will certainly become a culture in some areas while not serving will become culture in others. This is not order.

I wholeheartedly agree with you on this, the commandment that all worthy young priesthood holders to serve should always be taught and emphasized BUT should a young man not want to go why do we have to put him out on a plank and say he is on "satans side?"

 

 

 I M H O

[paracaidista508]

Pres Monson didn't go on a mission when he was between 19 and 25 years old when he could have...

 

I'm not gonna lose sleep over not going myself.

[classylady]

The basic problem is, if every young man chose not to go on a mission, how would Christ further his work?  The Gospel must move forward!  We are in the last days.  We must gather in His sheep.  There are many of our brothers and sisters who need the Gospel and who will accept it.  If the young men of the church choose not to serve missions, our brothers and sisters will not hear the Gospel.  It is a duty to declare the Word of God to our brothers and sisters.  We need missionaries!!!  And, one cannot say, "it doesn't matter if I go because there are so many other missionaries out there".  There are not enough!

 

And, any young person who does not fulfill their duty by serving a mission, they may be denying the opportunity of the Gospel being brought to a particular brother or sister.  This is a tragedy!  And, yes, a young man who didn't serve may repent, and be forgiven, but the consequences of their not serving cannot be denied.  There are consequences when young men choose not to serve.  I would not want to meet my Maker and say "I chose not to go because I didn't feel like it".  I would not want to meet a brother or a sister, and they asked me why I didn't serve, because they would have accepted the Gospel if I had gone.

 

I look at my husband's decision not to serve a mission.  As I said before, he has regretted it.  And, you know what he lost by not serving?  He lost the opportunity to share the Gospel to brothers and sisters whom he would have loved and they would have loved him for bringing them the Gospel.  This love is profound!  I cannot imagine not knowing the people I taught the Gospel to while on my mission.  I love them so much.  The joy I felt when they accepted the Gospel and were baptized is indescribable!  My husband never felt that joy!  He never felt the Spirit so intense, that it can't be explained!  Mission service is not only a duty, it is a blessing!  I thank God every single day for my opportunity to serve my mission.

[estradling75]

Pres Monson didn't go on a mission when he was between 19 and 25 years old when he could have...

 

I'm not gonna lose sleep over not going myself.

 

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."

[unixknight]

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

 

Who has a chip on their shoulder in that regard?  

 

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

 

Ok, so you choose to let an organization that has nothing whatsoever with Church morality and perspective tell you what's fit to watch and what isn't.  I'd let my kids watch Equilibrium (rated R) long before I'd let them watch Austin Powers (Rated PG-13) because of the nature of the content in the films, but I guess that's just me going off and using my own discernment again.  

 

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

 

If everybody saw things the same way, or if there was actual Scripture to back up a "commandment" that every single person should serve a mission, then there'd be nothing to debate.

 

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

 

I've seen it happen twice with people I know.  (People being honorably sent home early from their missions) Doesn't strike me as non sequitur.

 

But we are not giving your "our" view...  We are telling you the view of the Prophets of God...  You are not disagreeing with us (or just us) you are disagreeing with the Word of God as delivered by his leaders.

 

As you understand it.

 

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.

 

Would you mind referencing the exact point at which that change occurred?

[Backroads]

So we're all misunderstanding what is really just a friendly suggestion and the truth of it is that anyone who does serve a mission is only entrenching himself in a backwards culture?

[Guest]

Pres Monson didn't go on a mission when he was between 19 and 25 years old when he could have...

 

I'm not gonna lose sleep over not going myself.

 

This is a major cop-out that is rooted in a false spin on the mission service of President Monson.

 

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."

Not only that but...

President Monson did not serve a mission because he signed up for a tour of duty, albeit stayed in San Diego for his whole tour, in World War II.

After he got out of tour, President Monson got married (21 years old), and got called to the Bishopric. He declined a commission with the Navy and asked to be discharged upon the prompting of Harold B. Lee who was his stake president. Pres. Monson became a bishop at age 22.

At age 31, Pres. Monson served as a Mission President in Canada. He was the Mission President that opened up missionary efforts in the French-speaking region of Quebec.

So, yeah... he didn't serve a 2 year mission. He did bigger things!

PERSPECTIVE. It matters.

Edited June 10, 2015 by anatess

[unixknight]

So we're all misunderstanding what is really just a friendly suggestion and the truth of it is that anyone who does serve a mission is only entrenching himself in a backwards culture?

 

Who said that?

 

So, yeah... he didn't serve a 2 year mission. He did bigger things!

PERSPECTIVE. It matters.

 

That's great and I have no criticism of his actions, but by the arguments written by some of our brothers and sisters in this threat, he still failed to do his duty to the Lord.

[The Folk Prophet]

Would you mind referencing the exact point at which that change occurred?

“The question has been often asked, Is the mission program one of compulsion? And the answer, of course, is no. Everyone is given his free agency. The question is asked: Should every young man fill a mission? And the answer of the Church is yes, and the answer of the Lord is yes. Enlarging this answer we say: Certainly every male member of the Church should fill a mission, like he should pay his tithing, like he should attend his meetings, like he should keep his life clean and free from the ugliness of the world and plan a celestial marriage in the temple of the Lord” (Spencer W. Kimball, “Planning for a Full and Abundant Life”, Ensign, May 1974, 86).

[Traveler]

I believe it is a forest verses trees kind of thing.

 

I have known many individuals with callings (including missionaries) that are not about service.  I also know many individuals without callings that serve with all their heart, might, mind and strength.   I have pondered callings and why many are called or the reason for calling and others not called.  I do not believe the main reason for calling is because someone is the more righteous - nor do I believe the main reason for callings are to develop talents.  It appears to me the reason we are given callings is because for the most part - without calling - we would not serve.  It is hard enough to get priesthood holders to visit members in their homes when called to be a home teacher - What visits would there be without a calling?  Especially those that do not show up that often at church?  Sadly who would bother over lost sheep without some kind of call to do so? 

[The Folk Prophet]

That's great and I have no criticism of his actions, but by the arguments written by some of our brothers and sisters in this threat, he still failed to do his duty to the Lord.

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.

[unixknight]

“The question has been often asked, Is the mission program one of compulsion? And the answer, of course, is no. Everyone is given his free agency. The question is asked: Should every young man fill a mission? And the answer of the Church is yes, and the answer of the Lord is yes. Enlarging this answer we say: Certainly every male member of the Church should fill a mission, like he should pay his tithing, like he should attend his meetings, like he should keep his life clean and free from the ugliness of the world and plan a celestial marriage in the temple of the Lord” (Spencer W. Kimball, “Planning for a Full and Abundant Life”, Ensign, May 1974, 86).

 

Thank you!

 

So as a 41 year old man who joined the church at the age of 25 it appears, from just that quote, that I would be regarded as being derelict in my duty for not having served a mission, even though I've been a member now for 16 years.  Is that not so?

 

The other items mentioned; attending meetings, paying tithing, keeping clean, are not things that should be regarded as optional, right?

[estradling75]

The core point is why are we here?   The Scriptures are clear that the earth was created to prove us now herewith to see if we will do ALL things the Lord commands.  I really hope no one thinks that is just my "interpretation"

 

Throughout the ages the Lord through his prophets have commanded various things  As people (as groups and individuals) followed the commandments they prospered as they rebelled they failed to prosper.  With repentance always being an option.  Again I really hope that no one thinks that this is just my "interpretation"

 

Now as a faithful LDS member, I accept as a given that we are currently Lead by prophets and apostles of God whom relay his commands to us.  While I fully expect non faithful LDS to disagree with this point I have a hard time thing that and faithful LDS would disagree with this point.

 

So the question is what have are current leader told us on the subject of young men serving a mission?  Well that has been documented.  Those documents have been referenced in this thread and are on LDS.org.

 

That instruction to prepare for and serve a mission a clear "revelation" from God to the people.  With this "revelation" given it become a clear choice to obey and follow the Lord or rebel (and we know where that path leads)

 

This is a general revelation to all the church.  The idea that someone should wait until the Lord reveals to them personally ignores the simple fact that it has already been revealed by his servants.  They simply do not want to hear it.  Now this general revelation  can be overruled by a personally revealed exception.  It is possible that the Lord might reveal to a young man that the Lord as a different plan in which case the young man will fulfill his duty by following the will of the Lord.  Of course in order to hear this message the young man needs to be spiritually in tune.  Which he can become as he follows the command to prepare to serve.  Its also possible that a young man might be excused from his duty for things beyond is control (medical cases are an example of this). This exception comes from the Leaders of the church as they work individualize and detail the general revelation given to each young man.

 

Now those that chose to ignore the command/revelation/instruction from God have the right to do so.  That is agency.  But it is also very clear that if you are not following God, whom you are following instead.  Now when someone chooses to disobey God they aren't necessary at that point flipping the double bird to God and proclaiming "Hail Satan!"  That is not how he works.  He works by making you think a very clear command from God is some how not a command.  He whispers things like.. "Its just a suggestion", "Its just a good idea", "You can repent later so do what you want now." and various other pleasing lies to lull us to a false sense of security in our disobedience.

 

Making sure the young men understand this is important.  Just as it is important that the young men understand that they can gave forgiveness for when they chose poorly.  (Which we all do at some points in our lives)  And no matter what they choose we need to make sure they feel our love and concern. (This is something I think we could work on)

[The Folk Prophet]

Duplicate 

Edited June 10, 2015 by The Folk Prophet

[Backroads]

Who said that?

 

 

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?