Is it ever ok not to serve a mission???


Fether
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest MormonGator
53 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Then you cannot say that you view LDS missionaries as volunteers.

For some kids, it's the kind of freedom that Shift described to Puzzle in The Last Battle from the Narnia series. "Freedom is doing what I tell you to do." I had that choice to get confirmed in the Catholic church at 16 when I was growing up. I said "I don't want to get confirmed." The choice was (surprise!) that I was going to get confirmed anyway.  I'm am 100% confident that some kids feel the same way about their mission. 

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

For some kids, it's the kind of freedom that Shift described to Puzzle in The Last Battle from the Narnia series. "Freedom is doing what I tell you to do." I had that choice to get confirmed in the Catholic church at 16 when I was growing up. I said "I don't want to get confirmed." The choice was oddly taken away from me and (surprise!) I had to get confirmed.  I'm am 100% confident that some kids feel the same way about their mission. 

Which makes for super low quality missionaries and probably horrible retention post-mission.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
1 minute ago, Jane_Doe said:

Which makes for super low quality missionaries and probably horrible retention post-mission.  

Yup. That's why we need to be very careful as a church on who we send out to the mission field. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We had a young man in the ward who joined the military and went to the Middle East. He was one of the nicest guys and active in church, but just did not see himself in a mission.

When he came back on leave and gave a talk, he spoke about being a witness to the faith, how he avoided certain activities, talked to people about the Church, the good reports he received because of his behavior and charity to his fellow soldiers, etc.

He may not have been dressed in a suit and carrying the Book of Mormon, but believe me,  he was a missionary nonetheless. 

btw - Our ward listed him in the bulletin and on the bulletin board with the 'regular' missionaries from the ward. No one thinks any less of him that I know of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

For some kids, it's the kind of freedom that Shift described to Puzzle in The Last Battle from the Narnia series. "Freedom is doing what I tell you to do." I had that choice to get confirmed in the Catholic church at 16 when I was growing up. I said "I don't want to get confirmed." The choice was (surprise!) that I was going to get confirmed anyway.  I'm am 100% confident that some kids feel the same way about their mission. 

Well you know... Christ said we need to have Faith and Repent...   But hey if you don't want to... that's cool... But I really don't want to hear the whining about the very clear and explicitly stated consequence if you choose to remain unrepentant to the point that option is no longer available... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In our stake, a few years ago, someone sent in their mission papers, and received a reply that in effect said, no, not yet, wait. I think that in these circumstances, having applied to serve a mission and being told not, that it would have been wrong for this person to have then served a mission at that time. This would seem to be an exception to the rule. I have no idea how common it is but it seems to be a perfectly valid and legitimate exception. About six months later they were invited to submit their application, which they did, and were then called to serve in a nearby mission. They came home after about 12 months, something to do with anxiety. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Ironhold said:

My personal story? 

When I was a teen, the stake authorities - and many ward & branch authorities - were hard-core about pushing missions. It was the obligation of all young men to go on a mission, and the obligation of young women to only date returned missionaries so as to add additional incentive for the young men to go. 

Well, during my senior year of high school, my maternal grandmother was diagnosed with Alzheimer's. My dad was transitioning from military life to a civilian job, and my older brothers were off doing their own thing. If I went anywhere, mom would have to handle things on her own. I just accepted that I'd be going to the local community college instead of acting on the recruitment mailings I'd been getting (including one to Rutgers. Rutgers). 

Instead, I ended up doing all sorts of missionary work by way of the internet. Most people who get online nowadays are lucky, they've got all sorts of outlets, and all sorts of reasonably friendly places to chat. I first got online in 2000, and I had none of that. LDS.org was barely functional, Mormon.org was a pipe dream, and the Bloggernacle wasn't even at the back of anyone's mind. Instead, the reality of the situation was that the minute you self-identified on a message board, you got dog-piled by people who had website upon website of canned arguments at their disposal, and at least some of these people also had personal grudges or even pure rage. Yes folks, back then, your "making it" was based on how many death threats you got, not page views or likes. 

So there I was, in the thick of it, learning the hard way how best to spread the gospel online while also helping to make what we know today possible. In fact, the entire reason why I got a Deviant Art account in the first place was because it was free hosting for the essays and responses I was writing at the time; stuff kept showing up so often, it was easier to just copy & past or provide a link instead of hammering it out again and again. If you like posting on Mormon Hub and routinely expect a fair amount of respect when discussing the church online, you're welcome. 

 

 

 

Unfortunately, this all meant bupkis back in the real world. 

It was made entirely too clear on entirely too many occasions that since I never wore a name tag, nothing I did mattered. Somehow, "becoming the personal bogeyman of an entire online anti-Mormon ministry because I kept shooting down their leader's conspiracy theories and rantings" was less impressive than wearing a suit and riding a bike. Entirely too many people at stake let me know again and again that I was somehow a failure, and the reminders came so often that to this day I hate having to go to stake priesthood events.

And my love life? I messed up a long-distance relationship I was in back in 2006, and take the blame for that. Why was I dating long-distance? Permanent friend zone... if I was lucky. Best-case scenario was that I was a friend, and never up for consideration for anything more. Worst-case scenario? I was now officially a nobody. And of course, the older I got and the longer I went without even so much as a girlfriend, the more people started talking... even within my own family. 

The final twist of the knife came when I went in for a temple recommend interview. The then-stake president told me that according to the advice he had received, recommends were only to be given to people who were going on missions or who were in a stable position in life. Well, I didn't go on that mission, and I was - like so many young men of that period - having career trouble because I was trying to balance work and college, so no temple recommend for me. 

Yeah. 

And people wonder why for the longest time all I wanted to do was leave town. 

Thank you for sharing this and for your honesty

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, askandanswer said:

In our stake, a few years ago, someone sent in their mission papers, and received a reply that in effect said, no, not yet, wait. I think that in these circumstances, having applied to serve a mission and being told not, that it would have been wrong for this person to have then served a mission at that time. This would seem to be an exception to the rule. I have no idea how common it is but it seems to be a perfectly valid and legitimate exception. About six months later they were invited to submit their application, which they did, and were then called to serve in a nearby mission. They came home after about 12 months, something to do with anxiety. 

There is no exception to the rule here.

Is it ever ok to NOT take out your endowments?  Not if there's a choice.  But if you're not worthy, then you need to get worthy and then go.  That is exactly what this individual did.  I'm assuming it was worthiness that was the issue.  But similar things could be due to money or health or whatever.  If you don't have the money then save up then go.  If you have a health issue, then get healthy first, then go.

There are all sorts of reasons to delay as you're properly preparing.  But to simply decide "I'm not going because I just don't want to" is the same as saying "I'm not going to receive my endowments because I just don't want to."

We can talk about all sorts of good people who didn't go.  They're mostly true.  But that speaks more to the power of repentance and the Atonement than it does to "not going" being "OK".  

I'm still wondering if anyone really has a good definition of "OK" in this context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, dahlia said:

We had a young man in the ward who joined the military and went to the Middle East. He was one of the nicest guys and active in church, but just did not see himself in a mission.

When he came back on leave and gave a talk, he spoke about being a witness to the faith, how he avoided certain activities, talked to people about the Church, the good reports he received because of his behavior and charity to his fellow soldiers, etc.

He may not have been dressed in a suit and carrying the Book of Mormon, but believe me,  he was a missionary nonetheless. 

btw - Our ward listed him in the bulletin and on the bulletin board with the 'regular' missionaries from the ward. No one thinks any less of him that I know of.

You can still do a lot of good by not serving a mission and doing something else with your time, but a right does not correct a wrong. The commandment from The prophets is to serve a full time mission, not to go do missionary work in whatever way you want (that is a separate commandment all together). 

Again, not serving does not mean you are a bad person. Kinda like smoking a cigarette or breaking the Law of Chastity doesn't make you a bad person. But they are commandments from God. 

Edited by Fether
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Carborendum said:

There is no exception to the rule here.

Is it ever ok to NOT take out your endowments?  Not if there's a choice.  But if you're not worthy, then you need to get worthy and then go.  That is exactly what this individual did.  I'm assuming it was worthiness that was the issue.  But similar things could be due to money or health or whatever.  If you don't have the money then save up then go.  If you have a health issue, then get healthy first, then go.

There are all sorts of reasons to delay as you're properly preparing.  But to simply decide "I'm not going because I just don't want to" is the same as saying "I'm not going to receive my endowments because I just don't want to."

We can talk about all sorts of good people who didn't go.  They're mostly true.  But that speaks more to the power of repentance and the Atonement than it does to "not going" being "OK".  

I'm still wondering if anyone really has a good definition of "OK" in this context.

You almost make it sound like there are "no excuses" to NOT go.

Who should serve a mission?

President Thomas S. Monson said: “We affirm that missionary work is a priesthood duty—and we encourage all young men who are worthy and who are physically able and mentally capable to respond to the call to serve. Many young women also serve, but they are not under the same mandate to serve as are the young men. We assure the young sisters of the Church, however, that they make a valuable contribution as missionaries, and we welcome their service.” (Thomas S. Monson, "Welcome to Conference," LiahonaNovember 2012, 4).

How do I know if I am worthy and able to serve a mission?

Whether you have concerns about your worthiness or physical or emotional limitations, you should visit with your bishop or branch president. He will help you understand the eligibility requirements for missionary service. See also “Preparation Brings Blessings,” one of President Thomas S. Monson's April 2010 general conference addresses....

Do I have to meet physical requirements to serve a mission?

Yes. Physical health is an important part of missionary service. A missionary must be able to walk an average of six miles (10 km) per day and ride a bicycle 12 miles (19 km) per day. Weight guidelines exist for prospective missionaries. Talk to your bishop or branch president for more information or if you are concerned about the physical requirements for missionaries. For additional information, see the March 2007 Ensign article “Missionary Health Preparation.”

What if I am not able to serve a full-time mission due to health concerns?

The First Presidency has stated: “There are worthy individuals who desire to serve but do not qualify for the physical, mental, or emotional challenges of a mission. We ask stake presidents and bishops to express love and appreciation to these individuals and to honorably excuse them from full-time missionary labors.” In such cases, service missions can be a great blessing, allowing you to live at home and receive appropriate medical care while growing and maturing in the service of the Lord. Talk to your bishop or branch president for more information on Church service missions. (“Missionary Health Preparation,” Donald B. Doty, M.D., Chairman, Missionary Department Health Services).

https://www.lds.org/callings/missionary/faqs?lang=eng#4

M.

Edited by Maureen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Maureen said:

You almost make it sound like there are "no excuses" to NOT go.

If you just want to cherry pick for reasons to argue, that isn't a very elightened approach.

21 hours ago, Carborendum said:

If it is a choice -- No.

5 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Not if there's a choice.  But if you're not worthy, then you need to get worthy and then go.  That is exactly what this individual did.  I'm assuming it was worthiness that was the issue.  But similar things could be due to money or health or whatever.  If you don't have the money then save up then go.  If you have a health issue, then get healthy first, then go.

For someone seeking understanding rather than a reason to disagree, this would have the inherent,"if you have something chronic that cannot be healed, then don't".  But go ahead and choose to ignore the obvious.  It seems to have served you well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

If you just want to cherry pick for reasons to argue, that isn't a very elightened approach.

For someone seeking understanding rather than a reason to disagree, this would have the inherent,"if you have something chronic that cannot be healed, then don't".  But go ahead and choose to ignore the obvious.  It seems to have served you well.

Your other posts didn't give the impression that you thought young men could possibly have a chronic health problem. It's good to know you have clarified that you now know that that is possible.

M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Ironhold said:

Thanks. 

There's a reason why "Mary Jane's Last Dance" was basically my personal theme song for a few years. 

"Tired of screwing up / tired of going down / tired of my self / tired of this town"...

You just became my most favorite person on the internet.

"Oh my my, Oh well yeah, honey put on that party dress.  Buy me drink, sing me song, take me as I come coz I can't stay long..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Godless
11 hours ago, askandanswer said:

In our stake, a few years ago, someone sent in their mission papers, and received a reply that in effect said, no, not yet, wait. I think that in these circumstances, having applied to serve a mission and being told not, that it would have been wrong for this person to have then served a mission at that time. This would seem to be an exception to the rule. I have no idea how common it is but it seems to be a perfectly valid and legitimate exception. About six months later they were invited to submit their application, which they did, and were then called to serve in a nearby mission. They came home after about 12 months, something to do with anxiety. 

My brother suffers from severe anxiety and a whirlwind of food allergies. Because of this, he was sent on a 90 day "test mission" in a neighboring mission region. In the end it was the food allergies that disqualified him from a full mission. His dietary restrictions were too difficult to cater to in an environment where elders are frequently dining in other peoples homes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just think that it is wrong to actively choose not to serve when you are mentally and physically able to. Personality, personal testimony, finances, sports, marriage, or attitude should not keep any young man from a mission. Health (mental and physical) and worthiness should be only things keeping you from serving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Maureen said:

Your other posts didn't give the impression that you thought young men could possibly have a chronic health problem. It's good to know you have clarified that you now know that that is possible.

Well, I'm so glad I have your permission to say so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Fether said:

You can still do a lot of good by not serving a mission and doing something else with your time, but a right does not correct a wrong. The commandment from The prophets is to serve a full time mission, not to go do missionary work in whatever way you want (that is a separate commandment all together). 

Again, not serving does not mean you are a bad person. Kinda like smoking a cigarette or breaking the Law of Chastity doesn't make you a bad person. But they are commandments from God. 

Wow. I don't take this view.You know, not everyone who wants to can serve. Not even every worthy male. This is the kind of attitude that makes people leave the Church and/or makes them unsure and have low self esteem for years. No thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, dahlia said:

Wow. I don't take this view.You know, not everyone who wants to can serve. Not even every worthy male. This is the kind of attitude that makes people leave the Church and/or makes them unsure and have low self esteem for years. No thanks.

So I'm pretty sure we have already addressed this in earlier comments. I'm not generalizing. I know very well people want to but because of physical limits they can't and they are an exception.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Maureen said:

Do I have to meet physical requirements to serve a mission?

Yes. Physical health is an important part of missionary service. A missionary must be able to walk an average of six miles (10 km) per day and ride a bicycle 12 miles (19 km) per day. Weight guidelines exist for prospective missionaries. Talk to your bishop or branch president for more information or if you are concerned about the physical requirements for missionaries. For additional information, see the March 2007 Ensign article “Missionary Health Preparation.”

What if I am not able to serve a full-time mission due to health concerns?

The First Presidency has stated: “There are worthy individuals who desire to serve but do not qualify for the physical, mental, or emotional challenges of a mission. We ask stake presidents and bishops to express love and appreciation to these individuals and to honorably excuse them from full-time missionary labors.” In such cases, service missions can be a great blessing, allowing you to live at home and receive appropriate medical care while growing and maturing in the service of the Lord. Talk to your bishop or branch president for more information on Church service missions. (“Missionary Health Preparation,” Donald B. Doty, M.D., Chairman, Missionary Department Health Services).

https://www.lds.org/callings/missionary/faqs?lang=eng#4

M.

In that sense, I wouldn't have been able to serve anyway; I was born with a heart condition, and at that point in my life I wasn't able to do any of that. 

...Too bad I got bupkis all support for the first several years, and was only later made a ward missionary as something of an afterthought once people finally started to wonder how I knew what I was talking about...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont think it is a big deal. There are a litany of GAs who did not serve missions. Of course the majority of them were excused because WW2/Korea was going on and they served there. That being said- nothing kept them from going on a mission after the war was over. After all, the Military does not issue you a wife so if they wanted to go, they could have.

Setting wartime aside- Pre Eyring didnt serve a mission and went into the military instead. No war going on. I dont know why he did that, but he did. He is a General Authority and I have not heard about anyone giving him the "what-for" because he didnt serve a mission.

What isnt ok is to not do anything in lieu of serving a mission. It is also not ok to turn into a deadbeat after serving a mission thinking you checked the box and are good to go. 

Some will say if one (male) does not serve a mission and you were not honorably excused then you are by default committing a sin no matter what. I would say that church policy as it has been exercised in the past probably negates that theory. Sin was then what it is now and I dont recall "failure to serve a full time mission" being listed as a bona fide sin anywhere. 

Go ask your Stake President how many recommends have been denied a priesthood holder who has not served a mission for any reason at all (who was eligible when 18-19 years old). The condition being that the person also cannot feel as if they have sinned and feel no need to repent. I'm betting on a big fat ZERO.

All that said- missions are good for whoever chooses to go serve and do a good job. Same goes for the military, peace corps, college or working at Burger King. 

I'm not as well read as some on this forum so I'm sure someone will come along and throw up some word salad and say, "see right there---its a sin! If you read this, and compare that with the other and say abracadabra you will see it too. So and so is an exception to the rule because of X."  


 

Edited by paracaidista508
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not understand these pages-long discussions that take place on this topic every year or so on this site. It seems simple enough to me:

Every young man should prepare to serve a mission. Every one. No exceptions. That is a young man's duty.

  • But what if he's sinful? He should repent.
  • But what if he's painfully immature? He should work to grow up.
  • But what if he's physically or mentally or emotionally handicapped? He should do what he can to overcome these obstacles.

It is the duty of every young LDS man to prepare himself to serve a mission.

But what if he can't go on a mission? That's a decision for his leaders. If he is unable to serve a mission despite preparing himself as best he can, then he is honorably excused. He has done his Priesthood duty and prepared himself; then he subjects himself to his leaders, and if they say no, then he doesn't go. No fuss, no muss, no sin, no problem. Oh, there might be social repercussions, because we live in a fallen world with imperfect people. But that has absolutely nothing to do with a man's standing before God or his preparation to do his Priesthood duty.

Now, if he is unwilling or unworthy to serve a mission, that's a different thing altogether. it's not my business, and it's not my problem, so I don't spend any time worrying about it. But let's not pretend that being unwilling or unworthy to do one's Priesthood duty is not a big deal. it is a big deal. Such a man needs to repent and get himself worthy, with his heart right before God.

And what if he is unable to serve a mission because of some past conduct? Then his duty is to repent and get himself worthy to serve a mission. He may never be allowed to serve a mission because of certain things he has done. But since you can't go back and undo what you did, you instead keep moving forward. Perhaps he has indeed permanently disqualified himself from full-time missionary service as a young man, but he can still repent and prepare himself as if he were going to serve a mission. Even if he marries his girlfriend and now most certainly cannot serve a mission, he can still repent, pray, study his scriptures, and prepare himself for missionary service. That's his duty.

And by the way, that duty applies to all the returned missionaries, as well. Even the fat middle-aged guys.

Every young man should prepare to serve a mission. it really is that simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Vort said:

But let's not pretend that being unwilling or unworthy to do one's Priesthood duty is not a big deal. it is a big deal. Such a man needs to repent and get himself worthy, with his heart right before God.

 

OK- so what is the penalty for not serving a full time mission then?? Surely we are not letting little things like a war get in the way of spreading the gospel. We have consequences for everything else- six months probation for certain WOW issues, 1 yr (if all goes well) for sexual sins and so on. This is where I'm not seeing it as a big deal. If it wont keep you out of the temple even when you feel you have not done anything wrong then where is the sin?

I have never repented for not going on a mission. I felt the military was where I should be for whatever reason that was. I made it very clear after coming home I had no intention of serving a mission and didnt feel as if I did anything wrong. That is the answer I gave to my Bishop and Stake pres when they asked me if I intended on serving a mission now that I was back and I said "no." I left with a recommend and was married 2 weeks later- still am in fact and happily I might add. Sure this was nearly 30 yrs ago but nothing has changed in regards to  sinfullness or lack thereof.

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