To serve or not to serve


Fether
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

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.

Ok I'll play your game. Here is the whole quote:

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

 

It includes everyone. Unless you think everyone means all members except for 18 year old males.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, paracaidista508 said:

Ok I'll play your game. Here is the whole quote:

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

 

It includes everyone. Unless you think everyone means all members except for 18 year old males.

Not playing a game, trying to help you understand what you are misunderstanding. You need to read this in correlation with the others. If this was the only statement, you are correct. This isn't the only statement and must be understood through the others. Fixating on one portion while "ignoring" (irony) the others isn't good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

Not playing a game, trying to help you understand what you are misunderstanding. You need to read this in correlation with the others. If this was the only statement, you are correct. This isn't the only statement and must be understood through the others. Fixating on one portion while "ignoring" (irony) the others isn't good.

The paragraph actually encompasses the entire idea and sums it up nicely... every member a missionary

what it doesn’t say is every male 18 yrs old it is mandatory to serve a full time mission. In fact it explicitly states no one is subject to be compelled to do it on a full time basis. That I s not what we tell our kids though. They are told they have no option but to serve a full time mission. End of story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, askandanswer said:

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.

ps

@Blossom76 an even better approach would be for you to ask the missionaries yourself in the ward you attend why they are serving a mission,  how they think they are being blessed by their missionary service, and how they think the blessings of missionary service will benefit them, their future spouse, and their posterity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, paracaidista508 said:

Ok I'll play your game. Here is the whole quote:

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

 

It includes everyone. Unless you think everyone means all members except for 18 year old males.

I think you might be placing too much emphasis on a 40 year old quote. I don't think it would be too hard to find far more recent statements from apostles and prophets emphasising the obligation of all worthy, capable young men to serve a mission. They're out there if you put in the effort to look. One talk that comes to mind, given within the last ten years, is the exhortation to "raise the bar" when it comes to missionary service. As another example of changing times, there also seems to be a greater encouragement for older couples to serve a mission now than there used to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours 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.

@askandanswer I just wanted your explanation of why you said the above, I didn't expect you to bother your son on his mission (though it was super nice of you to do so).  I was interested in your thoughts and why you said the above, I just don't understand how serving a mission can effect your future children (I'm assuming your son doesn't have any children yet?) and wife and cause them to lose out? Lose out on what exactly I guess is my question?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recently read an article that 70% of men who served a mission as a young person will still be active in the church when they reach their 40’s. Conversely, of those who didn’t serve a mission only 9% will still be active in the church when the reach their 40’s.  With that in mind it is no wonder the church strongly encourages our youth to serve.  

Missions help lay the foundation for a strong, Christ centered life as an adult. Help teaches lessons in humility, service, and strengthens one’s testimony by giving them a better knowledge of the scriptures and what it means to live a Christ like life. 

If you are a young person considering serving on a mission and are having doubts just remember, our Father does NOT call the qualified - He Qualifies the Called. There is a reason Christ chose a bunch of fishermen over the teachers of the law.  He used those who were willing to be obedient and through them He turned the world upside down!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
5 minutes ago, warnerfranklin said:

Missions help lay the foundation for a strong, Christ centered life as an adult.

That, and it helps these kids with their life outside the church too. Sometimes it gets rid of shyness and helps them lose their childlike naivety. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 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 am graciously permitting myself to quote myself  from a post I, myself, authored about three years ago:

Quote

Well, serving a mission may not be a doctrinal requirement; but proclaiming the Gospel certainly is--at least, if you're a priesthood holder.

When you receive the priesthood (possibly the Aaronic, certainly the Melchizedek), you take upon yourself the blood and sins of your generation. The Book of Mormon authors (notably Jacob (see also here and here), Benjamin, and Moroni (see also here) were preoccupied with this idea. This obligation has not been discharged by the "raised bar". If you pay very close attention to the beginning of the endowment, it mentions that the initiatory ordinances function differently for those who have the priesthood (i.e. men) versus those who do not (i.e. women). 

D&C 84 is clear that males have an obligation to receive the priesthood; so you can't dodge its obligations merely by declining to receive your ordination.

So, with reasonable allowances as defined by the Church based primarily on ability (health/mental conditions, etc), all males are expected to do everything in their power to help others free themselves from the bond of sin. You're most likely never going to get a better chance to do that, than you will by serving an LDS mission. 

The Atonement's power covers even our own failure to carry out our duties to the letter; but I think males who had both the opportunity and the ability to serve missions--and declined--will have some uncomfortable moments during their final stewardship interviews. And, more germane to the topic at hand: an able-bodied-and-minded LDS male under 25 who has not served a mission is not taking his priesthood obligations seriously. Which is none of my business, as long as he's not applying to be my son-in-law. 

I wouldn't want an LDS young man to feel forced; but nor should he feel entitled. Mormon men are not given the priesthood just so that they can wed and bed the first hot young LDS chickadee who comes their way. They are given the priesthood so that they may act as priests.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[Adding to the above]

It does seem to me that “missionary service” ought to entail some level of sacrifice; and when someone declines to serve citing the moral power of their multi-million-dollar entertainment or athletic contracts, it’s hard not to wonder where the “sacrifice” is.  Of course, it’s none of my business if I have no priesthood/family stewardship over the individual; but when such a person starts holding themselves up as an acceptable standard of missionary service for others to emulate, I think one has to push back a little.

To those who are citing presidents Monson and Nelson, I would note that both came of age in the middle of World War 2–Monson actually enlisted in the Navy; Nelson finished up his college and was two years away from his MD by the end of the war.  I respect LDS kids today who sign up for military service in lieu of missions; though I think it’s fair to note that none of those situations compares to that of the vast majority of pot-smoking, skirt-chasing, money-grubbing Mormon kids who justify their idleness with Nelson’s and Monson’s examples and then come to MormonHub.com kvetching about all those uppity Mormon girls who won’t give them the time of day because they aren’t RMs.

A young man who “got a revelation” saying he shouldn’t have to serve a mission has no right to complain when an LDS girl he fancies “gets a revelation” saying he isn’t  husband material. 

 

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

@askandanswer I just wanted your explanation of why you said the above, I didn't expect you to bother your son on his mission (though it was super nice of you to do so).  I was interested in your thoughts and why you said the above, I just don't understand how serving a mission can effect your future children (I'm assuming your son doesn't have any children yet?) and wife and cause them to lose out? Lose out on what exactly I guess is my question?

I'm not @askandanswer, but I'll answer the asked question anyways (pardon the pun).

Strengthening your relationship with the Lord can indeed bless you and your future (including any future children).  A mission is a great way to give yourself to the Lord and serving your fellow man.  It's a great way to learn how to talk to people and focus on foundational faith.  There are a ton of blessings that come from serving and honorable full-time formal mission.    

(My personal thoughts here) I do believe that every young person (and not-so-young) person should serve a mission, though it does *NOT* need to be full-time formal mission.  Listen to the Lord, devote yourself to Him and serving your fellow man, in however you are called to do so-- regardless of whether it involves a black name tag.  An attitude of "forget you Lord- I just want to do my own thing"- that indeed harms a person's relationship with God and hurts that person.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

[Adding to the above]

It does seem to me that “missionary service” ought to entail some level of sacrifice; and when someone declines to serve citing the moral power of their multi-million-dollar entertainment or athletic contracts, it’s hard not to wonder where the “sacrifice” is.  Of course, it’s none of my business if I have no priesthood/family stewardship over the individual; but when such a person starts holding themselves up as an acceptable standard of missionary service for others to emulate, I think one has to push back a little.

To those who are citing presidents Monson and Nelson, I would note that both came of age in the middle of World War 2–Monson actually enlisted in the Navy; Nelson finished up his college and was two years away from his MD by the end of the war.  I respect LDS kids today who sign up for military service in lieu of missions; though I think it’s fair to note that none of those situations compares to that of the vast majority of pot-smoking, skirt-chasing, money-grubbing Mormon kids who justify their idleness with Nelson’s and Monson’s examples and then come to MormonHub.com kvetching about all those uppity Mormon girls who won’t give them the time of day because they aren’t RMs.

A young man who “got a revelation” saying he shouldn’t have to serve a mission has no right to complain when an LDS girl he fancies “gets a revelation” saying he isn’t  husband material. 

 

You know...Monson joined the navy with a contract that released him 6 months after the war was over. That put him out of the Navy in approx. March of 46. He was still 18 or maybe even 19 yrs old. Single, didn't leave the states or do any combat time and then went to school. Married in Oct 1948. Plenty of tim to go ona  mission.

Nelson was in the relatively same boat. Didn't go into military till after ww2 and I think it wasn't until Korean war was up and running. I may be wrong on that. That said, WW2 was going on while he was in college and didn't go then. Waited till finished school to be an MD and then joined the Army. Plenty of time to go on a mission also but chose not to.

Oftentimes people cite the fact the war got in the way. Well Nelson was the only one to go to war and it was long after he was an adult. Monson never left the country and I'm pretty sure did less than a year in uniform. No one to include myself has any problem with this, but for anyone to say they couldn't go on a mission because of ww2 is laughable.

So who are these guys you are talking about??...well heres the quote:

"...majority of pot-smoking, skirt-chasing, money-grubbing Mormon kids who justify their idleness with Nelson’s and Monson’s examples and then come to MormonHub.com kvetching about all those uppity Mormon girls who won’t give them the time of day because they aren’t RMs.

Who exactly are you talking about? Have not seen anyone claim that resume here.

As for respecting todays kids who join the military in lieu of a mission...that's not very mormonish of you. You are supposed to say it is a terrible option. The worst thing ever. In fact it is a selfish and lousy thing to do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, askandanswer said:

I think you might be placing too much emphasis on a 40 year old quote. I don't think it would be too hard to find far more recent statements from apostles and prophets emphasising the obligation of all worthy, capable young men to serve a mission. They're out there if you put in the effort to look. One talk that comes to mind, given within the last ten years, is the exhortation to "raise the bar" when it comes to missionary service. As another example of changing times, there also seems to be a greater encouragement for older couples to serve a mission now than there used to be.

So you are saying I can look for more modern scripture to suit my personal agenda? Well that's cool. Can I write some too?
The Kimball quote being thrown around is the standard one which is used to tell young men they are required to serve a fill time mission. They just don't use the full quote.

You know, now I see why churches back in the day liked when people were illiterate. They could tell them whatever they wanted and the masses wouldn't know any better. Kinda like now except it is the parents and self appointed backroom clergy who quote a talk....at least what they want to have heard and use it as a form of manipulative propaganda. Why not have someone read the entire thing, study it and make up their own mind. Right now we start as soon as someone has cognitive thought and essentially tell them what their punchlist is for their life.  We want our kids to go on missions so badly we are willing to lie and/or and with hold info from them so thoey will go. No one likes it when you look something up and it doesn't say what they told you it 


 

Edited by paracaidista508
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, paracaidista508 said:

[1] You know...Monson joined the navy with a contract that released him 6 months after the war was over. That put him out of the Navy in approx. March of 46. He was still 18 or maybe even 19 yrs old. Single, didn't leave the states or do any combat time and then went to school. Married in Oct 1948. Plenty of tim to go ona  mission.

Nelson was in the relatively same boat. Didn't go into military till after ww2 and I think it wasn't until Korean war was up and running. I may be wrong on that. That said, WW2 was going on while he was in college and didn't go then. Waited till finished school to be an MD and then joined the Army. Plenty of time to go on a mission also but chose not to.

Oftentimes people cite the fact the war got in the way. Well Nelson was the only one to go to war and it was long after he was an adult. Monson never left the country and I'm pretty sure did less than a year in uniform. No one to include myself has any problem with this, but for anyone to say they couldn't go on a mission because of ww2 is laughable.

[2]So who are these guys you are talking about??...well heres the quote:

"...majority of pot-smoking, skirt-chasing, money-grubbing Mormon kids who justify their idleness with Nelson’s and Monson’s examples and then come to MormonHub.com kvetching about all those uppity Mormon girls who won’t give them the time of day because they aren’t RMs.

Who exactly are you talking about? Have not seen anyone claim that resume here.

[3] As for respecting todays kids who join the military in lieu of a mission...that's not very mormonish of you. You are supposed to say it is a terrible option. The worst thing ever. In fact it is a selfish and lousy thing to do. 

[1]Monson went right into the Naval Reserve after getting home and was planning to be an officer until after he got married, when his bishopric duties interfered to the point that he either dropped out of the program or resigned his position (my memory is hazy).  Nelson married before VJ Day.  And of course speaking more generally  WW2 was followed by almost two years of demobilization, followed by the drop of the Iron Curtain and remobilization for Korea. It was different times.

[2]. Well they wouldn’t claim it, would they?  But the entitlement, the contempt for missionary service, the misstatements of doctrine and twisting of LDS leaders’ statements, the demands that their revelations be respected in conjunction with their disdain for the revelations of the women who refuse to give their hands in marriage—yeah, we get that combination frequently enough for it to be pretty recognizable pretty fast.

[3]. Well, I was gonna say something about the military being a fine option for the kids who can’t hack a mission . . . :satan:

But seriously—one of the finest missionaries I knew had done a stint with the army in Iraq between the gulf wars; and my wife’s cousin did two tours as a Marine in Afghanistan before his mission.  The growth he went through was staggering.  I guess my thought is that if you aren’t going to serve a mission, then for the love of Pete . . . do something self-sacrificing that will put hair on your chest and make a man out of you.  In my book military service qualifies if that’s where God calls you to go (and better yet if you can squeeze an LDS mission into the tail end of that).  Earning millions of dollars singing songs/playing games . . . not so much.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are we debating whether it is a commandment or not.  That's just plain straining at the gnat.  

We have always had programs, principles, commandments, Church standards, principles of righteousness that don't really change -- not in their underlying principles.  How often do you actually hear ANYthing in general conference that shows forth NEW doctrine or NEW commandments.  They are exceptionally rare.  What we DO hear all the time is a new perspective, a different emphasis, a new application of old principles, etc.  The principles and commandments themselves are rarely ever new.

The fact is that each successive generation becomes more and more worldly.  With each successive generation we are asked to do more and more.  Whether that constitutes a commandment or not is inconsequential.  As our youth -- especially our young men -- are attacked spiritually more and more, these activities will help shield them from the influences of the world.

With statistics like what @warnerfranklin just provided us, is it any wonder why missions are so emphasized?  We can cite all sorts of reasons why not to.  And you can even say how useless it is if you didn't believe in it anyway (which is something we could debate).  But with only 9% remaining active without a mission and 70% remaining active with a mission, which option do you want your sons to take?

I realize there are no guarantees in this matter.  But when I want to encourage my sons to go on missions, it is not because I'm thinking of whether it is a commandment or not.  It is because I know the good it can do in the world (bringing souls to Christ) as well as the blessings that my sons may receive from serving.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having served in the military as well as a mission – I have a different view than most.  But my personal view was not shaped just by these events.  Rather my view comes from life experiences.  First, I would speak to military experience.  Though I value my experience as a life changing experience that I would not change – I found the military the worse run organization I have ever been involved with.  The concept of commission and non-commission officers is a tradition through back to ancient insanity made worse by the Dark Ages.  It is an example of the worse kinds of social prejudices.  In addition, the rigors and methods are based on the lowest common denominators – but still there is something to be learned with unity and team work when forced to work and live with individuals void of morals and what would seem to be “normal” intelligence.  

I believe that military service should be required for citizenship and property ownership.    I believe before someone can claim citizenship they should serve for a minimum of 4 years in the military.  I also believe before someone can purchase an automobile, home, have a bank account, credit card, be legally married, hold public office, be considered an adult or have a full-time job – they should first be required to carry a gun (side by side with the best and scum that society produces) with the prospect of using that weapon to end someone’s life in defense of other citizens and the laws of the country they live in.  I believe that if someone cannot or will not defend and support the country and it laws – they should not benefit from the harvests that society produces.   If you do not or will not serve – you should not be considered a citizen or have the rights and responsibilities of being a citizen (adult).  I believe citizenship should be available to all but not without some personal commitment, effort and sacrifice.  I also believe military service (in our country’s military) should be a requirement for anyone foreign, wanting to come to this country and be a citizen or even work in this country on a work visa.   I know I am a bit of a hard nose but if a non-citizen comes to this country for an education – I do not believe that they should receive a college degree unless they serve in our military.

Now for mission.  I believe every young man and young woman should serve a mission.  But I believe that a church mission should be voluntary.   If there is social pressure to serve – so be it.  Those that complain about social pressure to go on a mission – get a life!  If you cannot deal with such things – how do you expect to survive and be a person.  I understand people have issues – but when issues become more important than being responsible – such need help and are not ready for a great many – even lessor things.  Life can be tough – but in reality, life is not so difficult only that we make it so by our attitudes.   I found that my mission service was easy – one of the easiest and most rewarding of just about anything I have done.  I believe that the payback for the effort is beyond any other experience I have had.  Plus, a mission was fun.  For me, having a companion and going out into the world to share what means most to me was both great fun and rewarding off the charts.  Compared to marriage – a mission was a cake walk.  But the purpose of life is not a mission – a mission is not an end or that great of an achievement - it is just part of a path that leads to greater things.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/11/2018 at 6:59 AM, paracaidista508 said:

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. 

@paracaidista508, I'm glad things worked out very well for you and this reply is in no way intended to disparage your choices.  I just want to be clear on this first.

Anyway, you know how there are successful people out there who were raised by their teen-aged mothers?  Would you then say - being a teen-aged mother is just fine!  Look at that guy, he is a success story from a teen-aged mother.  No, I doubt we say that.

So, my husband did not serve a mission.  He was born in the Church, was very active in YM, only had his project to do to get his Eagle but ended up leaving the Church at age 17 and didn't come back until the week before we got married.  So, no mission and no Eagle Scout.  Guess what he's teaching my 2 boys - get your Eagle Scout and go on a mission.  Both my sons are only a project away from Eagle and they are passionate about serving missions. 

So yes, my husband made a success of himself even without getting the Eagle nor serving a mission.  But no, you're not going to catch him telling anybody that's just a fine choice for young men in the Church even as he is not a bit ashamed to tell anybody he did not get his Eagle (he's been our Scoutmaster for a few years now) nor served a mission.  Being ashamed about the circumstances in one's life that comprises one's journey to Christ is only for those people who put a lot of stock on what other people think of them more than what God thinks of them.

 

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/11/2018 at 1:59 AM, Blossom76 said:

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.

If the bolded sentence above is one's reason for not going on a mission, then all the more that it is important that one SHOULD diligently prepare to go on a mission.

Here's the difference - Tim Tebow versus Johnny Football.

P.S.  We don't go on missions to promote our Church.  

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are we quoting talks and acting like its doctrine?

@paracaidista508 I happen to agree with you, it is not a commandment. It is counsel some might say even good counsel given by a prophet of God we should listen to that counsel but as you have pointed out some LDS like to take snippets of talks and counsel given and blow it up. Kind of like a recent thread where there was a heated discussion about not delaying marriage or having a family and as a consequence ending up on the govt dole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Shocker.

Its not doctrine, It is doctrine to be a member missionary and proclaim the gospel. Do I personally think that every able bodied young man should serve a full time mission yes I do.  If someone chooses not to will I view them differently? The answer is it depends on the facts and circumstances surrounding their decision. I certainly wouldn't put them all in the same bucket.

Edited by omegaseamaster75
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, anatess2 said:

If the bolded sentence above is one's reason for not going on a mission, then all the more that it is important that one SHOULD diligently prepare to go on a mission.

Here's the difference - Tim Tebow versus Johnny Football.

P.S.  We don't go on missions to promote our Church.  

Tim Tebow vs Johnny Football vs Steve Young.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, omegaseamaster75 said:

Its not doctrine, it's just not. Do I personally think that every able bodied young man should serve a full time mission yes I do.  If someone chooses not to will I view them differently? The answer is it depends on the facts and circumstances surrounding their decision. I certainly wouldn't put them all in the same bucket.

We've been through this many times. And for some reason you cannot seem to understand that whether it's technically defined as "doctrine" or not is meaningless. You're "it's not doctrine" debates are a waste of everyone's time. It doesn't matter whether it's officially "doctrine" or not by your personal peculiar interpretation of the concept. Doesn't matter a whit.

There's what we should do and there's what we should not. It's really that simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, The Folk Prophet said:

We've been through this many times. And for some reason you cannot seem to understand that whether it's technically defined as "doctrine" or not is meaningless. You're "it's not doctrine" debates are a waste of everyone's time. It doesn't matter whether it's officially "doctrine" or not by your personal peculiar interpretation of the concept. Doesn't matter a whit.

There's what we should do and there's what we should not. It's really that simple.

It's this, we (able bodied young men) should go on a mission. We have been counseled to do so by our prophet. It is always wise to follow the counsel of our prophets. 

We can argue about what it is not and we will disagree. Some view it as a commandment. I do not.

 

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