To serve or not to serve


Fether
 Share

Recommended Posts

http://www.ldsliving.com/Donny-Osmond-I-Didn-t-Serve-a-Mission-But-I-m-Still-a-Missionary/s/84729?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=ctr

I get sorts concerned when I see articles like this. 

Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t there a time where the church not teach that all young men should serve missions?

but regardless, when a celebrity says this, young men that are already on the fence about serving may take this as their excuse not to go. Especially if they have a reason to stay for “missionary purposes”. Like playing on a college sports team.

I’m pretty one sided on this. All able and worthy young men should serve regardless of worldly opportunity.

thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think not serving a mission when you are a male member who is 19 years old, physically able, worthy, and not drafted into the army Is kind of a lousy and selfish thing to do.  People out there are spiritually dying and need the gospel.  If you don't go on a mission, your absence could mean the difference between these people winding up in the Celestial Kingdom and people winding up in the telestial kingdom.  Is an athletic scholarship or even a chance at playing in the NFL really worth it, as not serving a mission can really potentially mess these people up?  (Thanks to revelation the Lord has made it clear that those who don't have the opportunity to serve, e.g. those who converted later in life, don't need to drop their careers and go.  But the plan works because 18 year old male members are supposed to go).

I walked away from a national merit scholarship to go on my mission . . . (Fortunately I was unexpectedly able to get a different scholarship upon return).

Edited by DoctorLemon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

Just curious-do LDS athletes like Steve Young serve missions?  

Tyler Haws did and he has a sweet Mormon message that inspired TONS of athletes in my highschool to go on missions.

https://www.lds.org/media-library/video/2010-12-0160-a-work-in-progress?lang=eng

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
3 minutes ago, Fether said:

Tyler Haws did and he has a sweet Mormon message that inspired TONS of athletes in my highschool to go on missions.

https://www.lds.org/media-library/video/2010-12-0160-a-work-in-progress?lang=eng

Very proud of him for doing that. Good for him. 

Sometimes, the rules don't apply to athletes-I noticed that in my own life growing up. Many athletes were given special privileges that the lowly peons aren't granted. I'm very glad that LDS athletes like Haws (who, um, I never heard of. Sorry) choose to go on missions instead. Three cheers for them and the church who treats everyone the same way! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A mission is an open calling.  It would be as if every bishop went to every young man and said, I am calling you on a mission.  But not every calling must be accepted.  Donnie Osmond would have very few places in the world where he would not be recognized, and even the international press would have followed him around.  Same with many Mormon celebrities.  And he does far more to introduce his fans to the church.  His website has a whole Q&A about LDS beliefs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bytebear said:

A mission is an open calling.  It would be as if every bishop went to every young man and said, I am calling you on a mission.  But not every calling must be accepted.  Donnie Osmond would have very few places in the world where he would not be recognized, and even the international press would have followed him around.  Same with many Mormon celebrities.  And he does far more to introduce his fans to the church.  His website has a whole Q&A about LDS beliefs.

A mission is an "open calling" for women. For men, not so much. Women who do not serve a mission are not held accountable if they choose not to serve. Men on the other hand are very much accountable before the Lord if they "choose" not to serve. It would be similar to saying, the Savior was an "open" calling, that Christ easily could have said "no". Yep he could have, but his obedience and love for his Father, our Father, caused him to say, "Here I am." Celebrity status and knowledge of who we are shouldn't be any reason to withhold our service to God if we are "worthy" and "capable" -- David Archuletta is a great example of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

A mission is an "open calling" for women. For men, not so much. Women who do not serve a mission are not held accountable if they choose not to serve. Men on the other hand are very much accountable before the Lord if they "choose" not to serve. It would be similar to saying, the Savior was an "open" calling, that Christ easily could have said "no". Yep he could have, but his obedience and love for his Father, our Father, caused him to say, "Here I am." Celebrity status and knowledge of who we are shouldn't be any reason to withhold our service to God if we are "worthy" and "capable" -- David Archuletta is a great example of this.

Our current and also most recent late prophet chose not to serve missions. Please tell us how they will be held accountable. There are many other gen authorities in the same boat. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DoctorLemon said:

I think not serving a mission when you are a male member who is 19 years old, physically able, worthy, and not drafted into the army Is kind of a lousy and selfish thing to do.  People out there are spiritually dying and need the gospel.  If you don't go on a mission, your absence could mean the difference between these people winding up in the Celestial Kingdom and people winding up in the telestial kingdom.  Is an athletic scholarship or even a chance at playing in the NFL really worth it, as not serving a mission can really potentially mess these people up?  (Thanks to revelation the Lord has made it clear that those who don't have the opportunity to serve, e.g. those who converted later in life, don't need to drop their careers and go.  But the plan works because 18 year old male members are supposed to go).

I walked away from a national merit scholarship to go on my mission . . . (Fortunately I was unexpectedly able to get a different scholarship upon return).

Current and most recent late prophet were not drafted, yet still chose to not serve a mission. 

How can they do that and not be lazy and selfish???? Or are they? Just curious

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, paracaidista508 said:

Our current and also most recent late prophet chose not to serve missions. Please tell us how they will be held accountable. There are many other gen authorities in the same boat. 

That is easy, during their time the prophetic counsel wasn't "every young and worthy male is to serve a mission." Not hard to comprehend their accountability. Similar to Jay Golden Kimball's time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

That is easy, during their time the prophetic counsel wasn't "every young and worthy male is to serve a mission." Not hard to comprehend their accountability. Similar to Jay Golden Kimball's time.

Still doesnt account for why they did not... just curious, why did they have better things to do like uhhhh college.

Since we are on the accountability train, what is the penalty, punishment or whatever for not serving a full time mission? No recommend, no higher calling, disfellowship...what? 

Answer: there is no accountability because it isn't and never was a commandment to serve a full time mission

Edited by paracaidista508
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, paracaidista508 said:

Our current and also most recent late prophet chose not to serve missions. Please tell us how they will be held accountable. There are many other gen authorities in the same boat. 

You're right. Surely they are on the fast track to hell. I'm certainly glad that I am so much more righteous and acceptable before God than they are. Makes me sleep well at night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Vort said:

You're right. Surely they are on the fast track to hell. I'm certainly glad that I am so much more righteous and acceptable before God than they are. Makes me sleep well at night.

That's a dumb answer...hyperbole much? Just asking. 800 lb elephant in the room

Keep in mind, I'm not the one who posted here that it was selfish and lousy not to serve

Edited by paracaidista508
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, paracaidista508 said:

Still doesnt account for why they did not... just curious, why did they have better things to do like uhhhh college.

That wasn't the question, as to their reasons they did not serve. The question was pertaining to "accountability" as you specified here, "Please tell us how they will be held accountable." That was answered, so it accounts according to your question.

This new questions doesn't really matter. Why they chose to serve or not to serve was their choice. Some had college, some were drafted into war (i.e. Elder Packer served and I believe drafted during WWII).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

That wasn't the question, as to their reasons they did not serve. The question was pertaining to "accountability" as you specified here, "Please tell us how they will be held accountable." That was answered, so it accounts according to your question.

This new questions doesn't really matter. Why they chose to serve or not to serve was their choice. Some had college, some were drafted into war (i.e. Elder Packer served and I believe drafted during WWII).

Yea and neither Nelson or Monson were drafted. Both were single in peacetime and chose college over a mission. As it has already been said here that whoever opts not to go on a mission is selfish and lousy...just curious how it applies to our propbets. Just say in. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Back when I was a missionary - from time to time someone would ask, "How many missionaries are serving in your mission?"  My response was, "About half of them."

 

The Traveler

Thats probably accurate. I would have been one of the ones just spinning my wheels till I got my heroes welcome home two years later. Not saying that is right and it is not, just being honest. Let me tell you, that was not an admirable trait at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, paracaidista508 said:

Yea and neither Nelson or Monson were drafted. Both were single in peacetime and chose college over a mission. As it has already been said here that whoever opts not to go on a mission is selfish and lousy...just curious how it applies to our propbets. Just say in. 

Nor did President Eyring. He counts his serving as a mission leader during his time as his mission. The same for anyone else during their time and the prophetic counsel given. If a prophet was commanded to serve and did not he is held accountable for his decision.

If there wasn't a commandment, but a calling or assignment (i.e. Jay Golden Kimball) who petitioned to serve and was finally called because he petitioned to go and serve the Lord.

When we disregard commandments for selfish reasons, yes, that is really not hard to comprehend either, it is selfish. You are also misquoting @DoctorLemon, let me quote him so we actually read carefully what he said, "I think not serving a mission when you are a male member who is 19 years old, physically able, worthy, and not drafted into the army Is kind of a lousy and selfish thing to do."

DoctorLemon places conditions that are obvious: 1) 19 years of age, 2) physically able, 3) worthy, and 4) not drafted. In our own wisdom we are able to think of other reasonable reasons (in our time). I know of a young man who the time he was ready to serve a mission, fell sick, went to doctor and discovered a brain tumor. DoctorLemon wasn't mentioning this young man as "selfish and lousy" which is a tad disingenuous on your part toward Doctor Lemon.

His words don't apply to our late prophet, to President Eyring, to Elder Packer. Already answered this easy question. Not sure why you want to rehash it. Different times, different seasons. It would be similar to trying to hold Brigham Young and others as breaking the Word of Wisdom before their was a word of wisdom. The moment we had this, "History has recently recorded the words of a prophet calling for every worthy and able young man to serve a full-time mission." Things change, just as the Word of Wisdom, which was first given as counsel, and is now a commandment. Really simple gospel principle.

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Fether said:

http://www.ldsliving.com/Donny-Osmond-I-Didn-t-Serve-a-Mission-But-I-m-Still-a-Missionary/s/84729?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=ctr

I get sorts concerned when I see articles like this. 

Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t there a time where the church not teach that all young men should serve missions?

but regardless, when a celebrity says this, young men that are already on the fence about serving may take this as their excuse not to go. Especially if they have a reason to stay for “missionary purposes”. Like playing on a college sports team.

I’m pretty one sided on this. All able and worthy young men should serve regardless of worldly opportunity.

thoughts?

I think they should go if they want to. If they don't want to and won't do a good job, then why waste the time. Many think all should go no matter what. Many families just care that you go so they can maintain " good standing" in  the eyes of their friends.....whatever that even is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

Nor did President Eyring. He counts his serving as a mission leader during his time as his mission. The same for anyone else during their time and the prophetic counsel given. If a prophet was commanded to serve and did not he is held accountable for his decision.

If there wasn't a commandment, but a calling or assignment (i.e. Jay Golden Kimball) who petitioned to serve and was finally called because he petitioned to go and serve the Lord.

When we disregard commandments for selfish reasons, yes, that is really not hard to comprehend either, it is selfish. You are also misquoting @DoctorLemon, let me quote him so we actually read carefully what he said, "I think not serving a mission when you are a male member who is 19 years old, physically able, worthy, and not drafted into the army Is kind of a lousy and selfish thing to do."

DoctorLemon places conditions that are obvious: 1) 19 years of age, 2) physically able, 3) worthy, and 4) not drafted. In our own wisdom we are able to think of other reasonable reasons (in our time). I know of a young man who the time he was ready to serve a mission, fell sick, went to doctor and discovered a brain tumor. DoctorLemon wasn't mentioning this young man as "selfish and lousy" which is a tad disingenuous on your part toward Doctor Lemon.

His words don't apply to our late prophet, to President Eyring, to Elder Packer. Already answered this easy question. Not sure why you want to rehash it. Different times, different seasons. It would be similar to trying to hold Brigham Young and others as breaking the Word of Wisdom before their was a word of wisdom. The moment we had this, "History has recently recorded the words of a prophet calling for every worthy and able young man to serve a full-time mission." Things change, just as the Word of Wisdom, which was first given as counsel, and is now a commandment. Really simple gospel principle.

Ok so for the conditions... Both  Monson and Nelson met that criteria. Dr lemon didn't qualify his statement so without that qualification...He is essentially calling those two selfish and lousy. 

As for the tumor guy. He has a legit reason. Did I say someone like that would not?

Lastly the commandment part. So which prophet made it a Commandment (mandatory)for all worthy and phys able young men to serve a full time mission?

If it is a commandment, not following it then results in what? We have 10 commandments which if we do not repent for breaking we do no get a temple recommend or even worse....much worse in many cases.  As for not going on a mission?  What? Nothing. 

Go ask your stake pres, bishop. Ask what happens to someone in a temple rec interview who says yea I didn't go on a mission because I didn't feel like it and I don't regret it. Ask what they would then do with a person who broke this commandment and is not repentant. You might even get a blank stare. 

I've been the one sitting across from my bishop and stake pres right after getting out of the army. Neither one admonished me, asked if I had repented etc. Both knew my story in great detail and boy was some of it a great time to put out on the table, but I was never called to repentance for not going...recommend in pocket.

This is why I don't understand why so many get all in a tizzy when someone didn't go on a mission or resorts to name calling. 

Edited by paracaidista508
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DoctorLemon said:

If you don't go on a mission, your absence could mean the difference between these people winding up in the Celestial Kingdom and people winding up in the telestial kingdom.  Is an athletic scholarship or even a chance at playing in the NFL really worth it, as not serving a mission can really potentially mess these people up? 

I'm going to weigh in on this. I don't think God's plan is that fickle. First off, no one is going to be denied entrance to the celestial kingdom because they weren't introduced to the plan while on earth (which is what you're suggesting here). The Lord will provide a way. Secondly, I'm not sure that guilting someone into serving a mission is entirely Christlike. Seems a little manipulative to me.

To me, mission calls aren't much different than other calls: if the teacher is acting under the direction of the Spirit, it doesn't really matter whose face is at the front of the room. Which means serving a mission is self-beneficial. Sure, you (generic) bless the lives of others along the way, but who's to say the Lord wouldn't have sent someone else on that errand? To my incredibly limited understanding, serving a mission is as close as one gets in this life to living the law of consecration to the fullest extent. Those months served prepare one for life in the celestial kingdom better than most anything else. This is why I think military service is considered an acceptable substitute for mission service: here also you make a commitment to give up your everything and do whatever is asked of you in the name of serving others. ETA: I think this is also why there is such a strong emphasis from the GAs on serving a mission, circumstances allowing. (They've started stoking the fires of senior and service missions in the last few years.)

Edited by seashmore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, seashmore said:

This is why I think military service is considered an acceptable substitute for mission service: here also you make a commitment to give up your everything and do whatever is asked of you in the name of serving others.

Wish you were in my ward growing up. I got treated like the spawn of Satan for going in the army lol...

Of course there was no war going on back then so I was not  justified... now the fact there is a war it has now become an excuse not to serve in the military lol.

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