To serve or not to serve

[Blossom76]

34 minutes ago, paracaidista508 said:

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.

I agree its a personal choice, I don't think a young man (or woman) should feel pressured to give up 2 years (18 mths) of their life to promote their church if they don't have the testimony to do so.  Someone who doesn't want to go on a mission should not be viewed any differently than someone who does.  

The world is a hard place to make a living these days, its a critical time in young peoples lives to make sure they are on track with their careers.

[Anddenex]

29 minutes ago, paracaidista508 said:

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 somehow 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 does 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. 

Again, you are being disingenuous toward DoctorLemon. DoctorLemon knows his "conditions" do not apply to President Monson, President Eyring, Elder Packer, and President Nelson for the same reasons I have already given you.

The second statement, paragraph, isn't making any sense. The conversation is rooted in your disingenuous application of DoctorLemon's statement which you made here, "As it has already been said here that whoever opts not to go on a mission is selfish and lousy." The quoted statement is your reference to DoctorLemon who made no such claim. We weren't discussing how you felt about someone like the individual I know. We were discussing your attributed reference of DoctorLemon's statement.

President Kimball provided the following statement, "I was asked a few years ago, “Should every young man who is a member of the Church fill a mission?” And I responded with the answer the Lord has given: “Yes, every worthy young man should fill a mission.” The Lord expects it of him. And if he is not now worthy to fill a mission, then he should start at once to qualify himself. The Lord has instructed, “Send forth the elders of my church unto the nations which are afar off; unto the islands of the sea; send forth unto foreign lands; call upon all nations, first upon the Gentiles, and them upon the Jews.” (D&C 133:8)." (Source)

The statement I provided previously was given by Elder L. Tom Perry, "History has recently recorded the words of a prophet calling for every worthy and able young man to serve a full-time mission. The response to the prophet’s voice has been heartwarming. Many thousands of young men have listened to his clarion call and have come forward to fulfill honorable, successful missions, declaring the gospel of our Lord and Savior to ever-increasing numbers. Their harvest has been truly remarkable." (Source)

President Monson called Missionary work a Priesthood Duty. In light of the following verses of scripture he often quoted as prophet and as a member of the First Presidency, "Wherefore, now let every man learn his duty, and to act in the office in which he is appointed, in all diligence." The following verse should be one we take note of personally.

God is the one that deals out punishment and rewards, and as to what happens when people break commandments it is the same for any commandment -- something is lost until repented of. You assume nothing happens. There are many commandments, like reading your scriptures and praying. Yet, if someone tells the bishop or stake president they haven't read, what happens? Encouragement from leaders to read. What happens if a young man is choosing not to serve a mission -- encouragement from his leaders to go. Thus, the last two paragraphs are irrelevant, as not all commandments are in the temple recommend questions. I am thinking you aren't thinking through your examples very carefully.

God is the only one that knows what is lost when we cease to act according to commandments, whether or not they are in the temple recommend. These are simple principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Edited March 11, 2018 by Anddenex

[askandanswer]

My thoughts about worthy young men who choose not to go on a mission are thoughts of compassionate concern. They, their future spouse, and their future children lose out an incredible amount by their decision not to serve. The amount of blessings, learning and growth you miss out on by not serving a mission is just amazing, and there is almost no way to catch up on what has been lost.

[Blossom76]

4 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

My thoughts about worthy young men who choose not to go on a mission are thoughts of compassionate concern. They, their future spouse, and their future children lose out an incredible amount by their decision not to serve. The amount of blessings, learning and growth you miss out on by not serving a mission is just amazing, and there is almost no way to catch up on what has been lost.

Hey can you please explain what you mean by this.  I honestly don't understand. I'd appreciate it if you could explain it to me, like what are their future children and wives missing out on because they didn't go on a mission? And does this mean that women are more interested in marrying someone who has served a mission?

[lostinwater]

3 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. 

i would say this is a very common stigma within the culture of the mormon church.  Not doctrinal - that i acknowledge.

i had a good friend who tried to serve, lasted about 2 weeks in the MTC, and came back.  At the time, they said they were just giving up - sent home because they wanted it.  After coming home, they were referred to a church psychologist who damaged them even further.  Then the bishop tried to get them to serve again.  That was during the time of 'if every ward sends just 1 more person to the mission field.......'.  There wasn't any malice in what anyone did.  But good intentions did nothing to lesson the emotional damage.

As far as they were concerned, this was the end of their life - like a scarlet letter had been hung around their necks.  They were convinced nobody in the church would ever want to date them - would always feel humiliation as they had to leave their hand down when a group was asked who'd served.  The whole dating thing was unreasonable assumption probably - but it's difficult to argue that it definitely adds an additional layer of complexity surrounding dating in a singles ward.

A few years later, they were diagnosed with a severe physical illness - the symptoms were such that they weren't recognized as anything other than a lack of willpower at the time.i never realized a couple prophets never served.  Very interesting, indeed.  i wish they would have known.  Not sure where they are now.  

i hate the stigma and pressure that exists surrounding missionary service.  It's not sinister pressure.  But it's no less tremendous pressure for not being sinister.  i mean, stick 'future missionary' tags on kids in primary.  Continually stress the importance of preparing for a mission on every Sunday, every activity, etc., -  Think about what that sets up to happen in a person who doesn't serve. 

And no, i'm not demanding that the church quit trying to get people to serve missions.  But i guess i just hate it the same way an infantry soldier hates the person in the other trench who launched the mortar that blew their friend up.  i know it's somewhat unreasonable because it was done by someone without any malice, but i still hate it.  In fact, not only was it done without malice, it was done by someone who thought they were bravely serving THEIR 'country'.   But as far as i am concerned, the only thing they were doing was wounding MY comrade.

i don't care if people serve a mission, honestly.   i know some it's helped.  Most i know it hasn't.  Maybe that's because i don't have many TBM-kind of close acquaintances these days - bias acknowledged.   But i just hate the idea that it is made so, so, so important in the church culture.  Perhaps the pressure/stigma is worth the damage it causes, i don't know.  i haven't seen as many benefits as it sounds like you all have.  i've only seen someone whose intertube got flipped on the river of very powerful currents that takes kids towards missionary service, and watch them get torn up in the rapids.  Good person too.  Probably still are.  Have just lost track.  To that extent, i guess i am guilty for not helping them as much as i should - even as i use their painful experience for my mascot in making a personal point in this post - which as i reflect, is a rather sad state of affairs.  And that, at least, i can try to remedy.

[askandanswer]

3 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

Hey can you please explain what you mean by this.  I honestly don't understand. I'd appreciate it if you could explain it to me, like what are their future children and wives missing out on because they didn't go on a mission? And does this mean that women are more interested in marrying someone who has served a mission?

HI @Blossom76 I just sent an email to my missionary son asking if he could reply to this. He doesn't have a whole lot of time for letter writing and his letters are normally quite brief, but if he does reply I'll post it here. If he doesn't reply I'll try to explain this some time tomorrow.

[paracaidista508]

3 hours ago, Anddenex said:

Again, you are being disingenuous toward DoctorLemon. DoctorLemon knows his "conditions" do not apply to President Monson, President Eyring, Elder Packer, and President Nelson for the same reasons I have already given you.

President Kimball provided the following statement, "I was asked a few years ago, “Should every young man who is a member of the Church fill a mission?” And I responded with the answer the Lord has given: “Yes, every worthy young man should fill a mission.” The Lord expects it of him. And if he is not now worthy to fill a mission, then he should start at once to qualify himself. The Lord has instructed, “Send forth the elders of my church unto the nations which are afar off; unto the islands of the sea; send forth unto foreign lands; call upon all nations, first upon the Gentiles, and them upon the Jews.” (D&C 133:8)." (Source)

 

Well thank you very much for referencing this talk given by pres Kimball. I went and read it. A few paragraphs later I found this:

 

"Someone might also ask, “Should every young woman, should every father and mother, should every member of the Church serve a mission?” Again, the Lord has given the answer: Yes, every man, woman, and child—every young person and every little boy and girl—should serve a mission. This does not mean that they must serve abroad or even be formally called and set apart as full-time missionaries. But it does mean that each of us is responsible to bear witness of the gospel truths that we have been given. We all have relatives, neighbors, friends, and fellow workmen, and it is our responsibility to pass the truths of the gospel on to them, by example as well as by precept."

https://www.lds.org/new-era/1981/05/president-kimball-speaks-out-on-being-a-missionary?lang=eng

Funny how if one just reads the entire talk, they find out what the prophet really said as opposed to cherry picking a paragraph to support an agenda. I should have read this talk a long time ago. I have heard the quote you provide parroted ad infinitum, but never a mention of the follow on commentary. 

This is yet another classic example of one statement being turned into something completely different and then being held up as a commandment or some rule. Kinda like the caffeine statement some GA made over the pulpit years ago and all of a sudden Mormons can't drink coke and Pepsi. That one lasted over 30 years I believe until the church cleared that one up in 2012 with a , " uh yea that was never against our religion" statement in the news.

Thanks again

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 11, 2018 by paracaidista508

[paracaidista508]

3 hours ago, lostinwater said:

i would say this is a very common stigma within the culture of the mormon church.  Not doctrinal - that i acknowledge.

i had a good friend who tried to serve, lasted about 2 weeks in the MTC, and came back.  At the time, they said they were just giving up - sent home because they wanted it.  After coming home, they were referred to a church psychologist who damaged them even further.  Then the bishop tried to get them to serve again.  That was during the time of 'if every ward sends just 1 more person to the mission field.......'.  There wasn't any malice in what anyone did.  But good intentions did nothing to lesson the emotional damage.

As far as they were concerned, this was the end of their life - like a scarlet letter had been hung around their necks.  They were convinced nobody in the church would ever want to date them - would always feel humiliation as they had to leave their hand down when a group was asked who'd served.  The whole dating thing was unreasonable assumption probably - but it's difficult to argue that it definitely adds an additional layer of complexity surrounding dating in a singles ward.

My experience was of my family and bishop pretty much saying yea if you don't go you will pretty much be damaged goods. Those girls in the singles ward (these were a new thing back then) will not want to have anything to do with you. My family laid off of that one fairly quickly after I asked why my mom married my dad. He didn't go on a mission ....the bishop on the other hand. He constantly brought it up.

After getting out of the military, I didn't have much difficulty getting dates in the singles ward. I did have one girl cut a date short though once she found out I didn't go on a mission .  That was a fun drive back to her house. Ended up getting married in that ward.

Temple, kids, kids married and gone on missions....terrible the way everything turned out and we are even still married. Oh got my eagle too. Funny how that one all of a sudden turned into a nothing burger..eagle used to be the big indicator of your future success. 

As for a stigma later.on in life...I can't say I have experienced that other than in discussions with people or on forums like this. I was actually called a "nominal mormon boy" by a member of this forum because I didn't serve a mission .  I like that one, kinda cute moniker.  I can say though that the informal raise your hand if you served a mission happens quite a bit. Interestingly nothing ever happens with the Information from the impromptu poll. I never understood why they do that, but it has happened in every ward I have been in. Doesn't really bug me other than it seems like a dumb survey to take without any follow up like....hey you back there that didn't go on a mission...what's your major malfunction...ha that would be pretty exciting. 

Edited March 11, 2018 by paracaidista508

[CV75]

13 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?

There was another similar article about a popular athlete who dd not serve a mission due to anxiety and related emotional issues, but felt he did what he could by playing his college (and professional?) sport. I think there is room for exceptions. Could Donny have decided to serve a mission? Certainly. But perhaps he had similar issues that he is not mentioning; mental illness and neurodivergence were much more of a stigma 40 years ago, so he may not be comfortable bringing it up. If so, this does not change the encouragement he received and the conclusions he is drawing about how he did decide to handle the call to serve.

Edited March 11, 2018 by CV75

[Fether]

54 minutes ago, CV75 said:

There was another similar article about a popular athlete who dd not serve a mission due to anxiety and related emotional issues, but felt he did what he could by playing his college (and professional?) sport. I think there is room for exceptions. Could Donny have decided to serve a mission? Certainly. But perhaps he had similar issues that he is not mentioning; mental illness and neurodivergence were much more of a stigma 40 years ago, so he may not be comfortable bringing it up. If so, this does not change the encouragement he received and the conclusions he is drawing about how he did decide to handle the call to serve.

 

Not going because of health reasons is understandable. Every ABLE young men need to serve. And this article is not to judge Donny, he lived in a different time where missionary work was not a mandated like it is today. How many of our grandparents and great grandparents served missions or felt like they should have??

Today is different. The prophet of God had told us “every worthy young man should fill a mission. The Lord expects it of him. And if he is not now worthy to fill a mission, then he should start at once to qualify himself.” (Spencer W Kimball)

How can we hear this now and still say that we don’t need to serve a mission?

@paracaidista508

No reliable source suggests that if you don’t serve a mission you will be evil and life will suck. You simply didn’t follow the council of God, you transgressed the law. But that won’t keep you from the celestial kingdom

[Guest]

I stand by my statement that the decision for a young man not to serve a mission at age 19 is kind of selfish and lousy.  Does this make the young man himself who didn't serve selfish and lousy?  No.  But it does make the decision selfish and lousy.

I understand the commandment for every young man to serve came under President Kimball.  Before that, serving a mission for men was very much like serving a mission currently is for women - a good thing but not really a commanent.  This could explain Monson and Nelson.  However, I have a different take on this.  What if Monson and Nelson were supposed to go on missions (via personal revelation) and did not?  Is it possible that they could have made some selfish and lousy decisions in their youth, as we all do, and gone on to lead the Church?  Perhaps.  I know I have made some selfish and lousy decisions.  I would like to think this doesn't mean I am inherently a selfish and lousy person.  The only man who lived without sin was Jesus Christ.  That said, we need to call the sins themselves what they are.

There should be no stigma about not serving g a mission - the decision to serve is between the individual and the Lord, and doesn't taint someone for life.  However, I am not going to take the next step and say it is OK to choose not to serve.  The Lord has made it very clear that this is what He needs for His work in this time, just as He needed people to leave their families and serve 7-year missions back in the pioneer days.  The fact remains that not going on a mission is disobeying the Lord, and even though I don't think it permanently taints someone, it is still almost always a bad call and the wrong decision.

 

Edited March 11, 2018 by DoctorLemon

[Guest MormonGator]

17 minutes ago, DoctorLemon said:

I stand by my statement that the decision for a young man not to serve a mission at age 19 is kind of selfish and lousy.  Does this make the young man himself who didn't serve selfish and lousy?  No.  But it does make the decision selfish and lousy.

I understand the commandment for every young man to serve came under President Kimball.  Before that, serving a mission for men was very much like serving a mission currently is for women - a good thing but not really a commanent.  This could explain Monson and Nelson.  However, I have a different take on this.  What if Monson and Nelson were supposed to go on missions (via personal revelation) and did not?  Is it possible that they could have made some selfish and lousy decisions in their youth, as we all do, and gone on to lead the Church?  Perhaps.  I know I have made some selfish and lousy decisions.  I would like to think this doesn't mean I am inherently a selfish and lousy person.  The only man who lived without sin was Jesus Christ.  That said, we need to call the sins themselves what they are.

There should be no stigma about not serving g a mission - the decision to serve is between the individual and the Lord, and doesn't taint someone for life.  However, I am not going to take the next step and say it is OK to choose not to serve.  The Lord has made it very clear that this is what He needs for His work in this time, just as He needed people to leave their families and serve 7-year missions back in the pioneer days.  The fact remains that not going on a mission is disobeying the Lord, and even though I don't think it permanently taints someone, it is still almost always a bad call and the wrong decision.

 

You are always the voice of reason my friend. 

I'm surprised that so many 18 year olds choose to go on a mission in the first place. When I was 18, I can assure you that I wouldn't have gone on one at gunpoint.  

[Anddenex]

4 hours ago, paracaidista508 said:

Well thank you very much for referencing this talk given by pres Kimball. I went and read it. A few paragraphs later I found this:

 

"Someone might also ask, “Should every young woman, should every father and mother, should every member of the Church serve a mission?” Again, the Lord has given the answer: Yes, every man, woman, and child—every young person and every little boy and girl—should serve a mission. This does not mean that they must serve abroad or even be formally called and set apart as full-time missionaries. But it does mean that each of us is responsible to bear witness of the gospel truths that we have been given. We all have relatives, neighbors, friends, and fellow workmen, and it is our responsibility to pass the truths of the gospel on to them, by example as well as by precept."

https://www.lds.org/new-era/1981/05/president-kimball-speaks-out-on-being-a-missionary?lang=eng

Funny how if one just reads the entire talk, they find out what the prophet really said as opposed to cherry picking a paragraph to support an agenda. I should have read this talk a long time ago. I have heard the quote you provide parroted ad infinitum, but never a mention of the follow on commentary. 

This is yet another classic example of one statement being turned into something completely different and then being held up as a commandment or some rule. Kinda like the caffeine statement some GA made over the pulpit years ago and all of a sudden Mormons can't drink coke and Pepsi. That one lasted over 30 years I believe until the church cleared that one up in 2012 with a , " uh yea that was never against our religion" statement in the news.

Thanks again

I highlighted the initial part you missed, which begins with "Should every young woman..." The irony of someone speaking about "agenda" and "cherry picking" and not noticing what this quote was in reference to.

The only person turning a commandment would be you with regards to young man and President Kimball's statement. Now contrast that with what President Kimball said with relation to young man, “Should every young man who is a member of the Church fill a mission?” And I responded with the answer the Lord has given: “Yes, every worthy young man should fill a mission.” The Lord expects it of him. And if he is not now worthy to fill a mission, then he should start at once to qualify himself."

And since you enjoy speaking about agendas and cherry picking, here is another one you missed (same article), "Thus, the elders—the young men of the Church of the age to be ordained elders—should be prepared and anxious to fill a mission for the Church throughout the world. Presently, only about one-third of the eligible young men of the Church are serving full-time missions! One-third is not “every young man.” The average stake that I have visited had only between 25 percent and 40 percent of its eligible boys on missions. That’s all! Where are the other boys? Why do they not go on missions?

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."

These are two different statements in response to questions. This isn't hard to comprehend what President Kimball is saying in relation to both young men and young women. The paragraph you quote is the commandment of "every member a missionary." You don't have to be called to preach the gospel as a father, mother, or as a young woman. Read the article again, more closely next time.

Another quote from the article, "All young men in the Church should be very eager to go on a mission, and they should also assist their parents to fill missions after the families are raised. Young people should study the gospel, prepare themselves for service in the Church, and keep the commandments as diligently as it is possible to do."

Ya, me thinks, you didn't read very closely.

 

[The Folk Prophet]

9 hours 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. 

It is, was, has been, and always will be selfish and lousy to choose self over serving the Lord. If that's what Nelson and Monson did, then they were selfish and lousy in that choice, and thank goodness they repented. As will all, the Spirit can direct individuals to do differently than the norm. It is possible for any individual to be guided by the Spirit to do differently than a general direction. This may be the case as well with Nelson or Monson.

It may not be completely accurate to say that it's always selfish and lousy for a young man to choose not to go on a mission. But it will always be selfish and lousy to choose not to go on a mission for self rather than because the Lord directs one differently.

[The Folk Prophet]

26 minutes ago, DoctorLemon said:

I stand by my statement that the decision for a young man not to serve a mission at age 19 is kind of selfish and lousy.  Does this make the young man himself who didn't serve selfish and lousy?  No.  But it does make the decision selfish and lousy.

What makes a person selfish and lousy other than choosing selfish and lousy things?

[Anddenex]

Well, President Monson did serve a mission -- just not at 19. He was a Mission President at 31 which, well, that is definitely serving a mission.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

What makes a person selfish and lousy other than choosing selfish and lousy things?

The sad truth is, being fully honest, we are all inherently selfish and lousy persons, and that includes President Nelson, Nephi, and every other mortal who ever lived.  The only person who is not inherently selfish and lousy is Jesus Christ, who died for us all so that we may someday amount to something.  We are all ultimately and truly saved by grace.

[paracaidista508]

18 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

I highlighted the initial part you missed, which begins with "Should every young woman..." The irony of someone speaking about "agenda" and "cherry picking" and not noticing what this quote was in reference to.

The only person turning a commandment would be you with regards to young man and President Kimball's statement. Now contrast that with what President Kimball said with relation to young man, “Should every young man who is a member of the Church fill a mission?” And I responded with the answer the Lord has given: “Yes, every worthy young man should fill a mission.” The Lord expects it of him. And if he is not now worthy to fill a mission, then he should start at once to qualify himself."

And since you enjoy speaking about agendas and cherry picking, here is another one you missed (same article), "Thus, the elders—the young men of the Church of the age to be ordained elders—should be prepared and anxious to fill a mission for the Church throughout the world. Presently, only about one-third of the eligible young men of the Church are serving full-time missions! One-third is not “every young man.” The average stake that I have visited had only between 25 percent and 40 percent of its eligible boys on missions. That’s all! Where are the other boys? Why do they not go on missions?

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."

These are two different statements in response to questions. This isn't hard to comprehend what President Kimball is saying in relation to both young men and young women. The paragraph you quote is the commandment of "every member a missionary." You don't have to be called to preach the gospel as a father, mother, or as a young woman. Read the article again, more closely next time.

Another quote from the article, "All young men in the Church should be very eager to go on a mission, and they should also assist their parents to fill missions after the families are raised. Young people should study the gospel, prepare themselves for service in the Church, and keep the commandments as diligently as it is possible to do."

Ya, me thinks, you didn't read very closely.

 

 I read close enough so the the one part everyone seems to leave out of these discussions come to find out. So to my point...serving a full time mission is not mandatory contrary to what nearly every lds person would either tell you or believe.

Right from the mouth of pres kimball. You will never hear that part of his talk brought up in any church talk about missions. I have never heard it, but I have heard the other part a million times. Believe me I would have picked up on it. 

 

[paracaidista508]

14 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

Well, President Monson did serve a mission -- just not at 19. He was a Mission President at 31 which, well, that is definitely serving a mission.

We are talking about 19 year olds here, not married adults who have significantly more freedom on a mission than the kiddos do. It is a completely different level of a decision to serve. I do wonder tbough how was he able to afford the mission with three kids and like two days under his belt in a career. Was he a church employee already?

[CV75]

48 minutes ago, Fether said:

 

Not going because of health reasons is understandable. Every ABLE young men need to serve. And this article is not to judge Donny, he lived in a different time where missionary work was not a mandated like it is today. How many of our grandparents and great grandparents served missions or felt like they should have??

Today is different. The prophet of God had told us “every worthy young man should fill a mission. The Lord expects it of him. And if he is not now worthy to fill a mission, then he should start at once to qualify himself.” (Spencer W Kimball)

How can we hear this now and still say that we don’t need to serve a mission?

@paracaidista508

No reliable source suggests that if you don’t serve a mission you will be evil and life will suck. You simply didn’t follow the council of God, you transgressed the law. But that won’t keep you from the celestial kingdom

Had he gone at age 19, Donny would have received his mission call from President Kimball, so it wasn't a different time for him. But he made his decision in concert with Church leaders. I think President Kimball, and the prophets since him, have put forth the same message. They are general authorities, so they give general commandments, counsel, direction, etc. So yes, then (1970s) and now, the Lord expects every worthy young man to fill a mission. Service and temple mission accommodations are made for those who cannot serve a two-year proselyting mission. I think because of the general expectation, legitimate and binding exceptions and substitutes are made in concert with the Lord's revealed will and Church leaders.

[Anddenex]

12 minutes ago, paracaidista508 said:

 I read close enough so the the one part everyone seems to leave out of these discussions come to find out. So to my point...serving a full time mission is not mandatory contrary to what nearly every lds person would either tell you or believe.

Right from the mouth of pres kimball. You will never hear that part of his talk brought up in any church talk about missions. I have never heard it, but I have heard the other part a million times. Believe me I would have picked up on it. 

 

Intriguing, so to you when the Lord through his prophet states the following pertaining to every male member, young men:

1) Yes, every worthy young man should fill a mission.” The Lord expects it of him.

2) Certainly every male member of the Church should fill a mission, like he should pay his tithing,

This to you isn't a commandment? So paying tithing isn't a commandment, because every "male" member should fill a mission like he should pay his tithing. Yep, right from President Kimball's mouth.

Edited March 11, 2018 by Anddenex

[paracaidista508]

8 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

Intriguing, so to you when the Lord through his prophet states the following pertaining to every male member, young men:

1) Yes, every worthy young man should fill a mission.” The Lord expects it of him.

2) Certainly every male member of the Church should fill a mission, like he should pay his tithing,

This to you isn't a commandment? So paying tithing isn't a commandment, because every "male" member should fill a mission like he should pay his tithing. Yep, right from President Kimball's mouth, nope don't believe you.

I bet what you are saying. Question is how are you so smart that you can basically say, " yea ignore this statement he made,but all the others apply?"

So you are saying this statement is to be ignored? This does not mean that they must serve abroad or even be formally called and set apart as full-time missionaries.

I think your mindset is a lot like many other mormons...If you don't serve a full time 2 yr mission as a male....your service doesn't count. This knowing the pres Kimbal himself says a full time gig isn't neccessary.

 

Edited March 11, 2018 by paracaidista508

[Anddenex]

8 minutes ago, paracaidista508 said:

We are talking about 19 year olds here, not married adults who have significantly more freedom on a mission than the kiddos do. It is a completely different level of a decision to serve. I do wonder tbough how was he able to afford the mission with three kids and like two days under his belt in a career. Was he a church employee already?

The decision to serve is the same. What freedoms one is allowed doesn't change the decision to serve. I would recommend reading the biography of President Monson, that came out two years ago, or last year, that details your last question. He worked in printing.

[paracaidista508]

2 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

The decision to serve is the same. What freedoms one is allowed doesn't change the decision to serve. I would recommend reading the biography of President Monson, that came out two years ago, or last year, that details your last question. He worked in printing.

Not interested in reading the book. That's why I'm on here. We have sources who memorize the  minutia to regurgitate on a forum or sharpshoot the gospel doctrine teachers.

As for being the same decision...Not even close. Don't go as a youth...get ripped a new one. Don't go as an adult....well no one really cares.

[Anddenex]

1 minute ago, paracaidista508 said:

I bet what you are saying. Question is how are you so smart that you can basically say, " yea ignore this statement he made,but all the others apply?"

So you are saying this statement is to be ignored? This does not mean that they must serve abroad or even be formally called and set apart as full-time missionaries.

Already answered this question in my initial response to this quote. It should be read and acted upon in the Spirit given. This quote is in relation to the commandment of "every member a missionary." This quote begins with the question regarding "young women," "mothers," and "fathers." So, definitely not, we don't ignore any word from Prophets when spoken as a prophet. We understand them in the light and spirit they were given, not the "light and spirit" we want them to say.

Young women, mothers, and father do not need to be called "formerly" to preach the gospel. Notice the quote you are referencing also speaks about "every young person and every little boy and girl—should serve a mission." How does a little boy and girl serve a mission when they are not old enough to leave their parents? Easy, the quote is perfect, not ignored, "This does not mean that [little boys and girls] must serve abroad or even be formally called and set apart as full-time missionaries." Little boys and little girls can invite people to their baptism, which has caused some to reactivate and the part member family (the husband to join the Church).

Oh no, definitely not ignored, but read in proper light and spirit.