To serve or not to serve


Fether
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just now, The Folk Prophet said:

Doubtful.

But bitter people with chips on their shoulders would probably see them that way anyhow.

This is my problem with progressives.  We can't promote anything good because there's always that thimbleful that it doesn't work on.  Proof:  Sex-segregated bathrooms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, paracaidista508 said:

Say what you want....the church has officially acknowledged this is an issue. Bitter old men in the 1st presidency. According to you, yes.

Officially, huh?

Did they use the word "shalt". Because otherwise we're all free to ignore it I believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, paracaidista508 said:

Say what you want....the church has officially acknowledged this is an issue. Bitter old men in the 1st presidency. According to you, yes.

...That people have a chip on their shoulders?  Yup.  They've acknowledged it.  I believe their response was:  STOP IT!

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Wow.  Your ward are a bunch of awful people.  My ward isn't like that and thank goodness for that.  I mean, of course, we have our handful of busy bodies and gossip mongers, but they're a very small minority.  You make it sound like Mormons are awful people.  I don't see that in my neck of the woods.

I wouldnt say the entire ward was awful and i had to scroll back to see if i ever said such a thing....and i didnt. My commentary on this is how as an lds culture, early return missionaries are not treated too well.  By everyone? No, but enough to leave a young impressionable kid with that belief. It is such a problem the general authorities have been addressing it. We already have a huge problem retaining honorably returned missionaries in the church after somehting like 10 yrs or so. With the early returns...I bet the retention rates of these guys are much worse.

It is a cultural thing and as a collective, lds people are extremely awkward when it comes to how to deal with some kiddo who came home early for any reason,  much less something negative. I suspect most people are awkward about stuff like that, but this is our problem, not society at large.

Prime example...kid comes home after only 4 months. He is in the main priesthood gathering prior to. Elders and HP breaking off on their own. Bishop gets up and let's him know we are all comitted to helping him get back out there. He just answered up...I'm not going back out. Bishop said we will still encourage you....anyway meeting moved on. 

I actually really like that bishop, but that was about the dumbest thing I have ever heard. He came home early because he hated it. That's what he told my son, not me. They are friends.

Anyway...that was a few years ago and Im no longer in that ward but am aware he never went back out. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

20 minutes ago, paracaidista508 said:

I wouldnt say the entire ward was awful and i had to scroll back to see if i ever said such a thing....and i didnt. My commentary on this is how as an lds culture, early return missionaries are not treated too well.  By everyone? No, but enough to leave a young impressionable kid with that belief.

 

Okay... let's analyze this one.  How many is "enough to leave a young impressionable kid with that belief" in your ward?  30?  10?  5?  How many of these early returned missionaries in your ward are impressionable?  All of them, only some of them?  What's the cross-sectional average of impressionable early returned missionaries and number of awful people in wards that makes it reasonable to stop teaching young men that it is their Godly duty to go on a mission?  75%?  50%? 10%? 1?

And it's not at all a consideration that maybe these early returned missionaries are actually not hurting from awful people (because there are awful people everywhere, I'm sure this is not their first exposure to them) but from their own feelings of failure from not having completed their mission?  This is actually a very common feeling, even in athletes that, for no reason within their control, end up getting injured and can't finish the race.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

We can't keep sex-segregated bathrooms because of the less than 1% of the population who demand a bathroom that doesn't fit their genitals.

Yes, more of that devils bidding happening. I am glad for those organizations, companies and governments that are standing up to the liberal left and taking a stand against evil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Yes, more of that devils bidding happening. I am glad for those organizations, companies and governments that are standing up to the liberal left and taking a stand against evil.

I know a lot of liberal lefties that don't like people messing with their bathrooms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

I know a lot of liberal lefties that don't like people messing with their bathrooms.

And what really bothers me now are these liberals who are raising their children in genderless homes where they are letting their children pick their gender. There comes a time when I think we have an obligation to confront these people and children and set them straight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Carborendum said:

He was a very big deal back in the day.

I'm aware, but OP expressed a worry that the post by Donny Osmond would push youth on the fence about going on a mission to not go, which I find doubtful given his current influence on youth culture in the church.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heres the stark reality- less than half of our LDS youth serve on missions. In many areas like my own, that number is around 15% who end up serving. Now, of course we can drive home this idea that they should serve but the truth is- isnt that what weve always done anyway? Our approach needs to change. Serving a mission isnt a saving ordinance. The temple endowment however is. That should be what our desire shoukd be- prepare our youth to become endowed in the temple. All else falls into place after that- whether they serve a mission or whatever else they do at least they are prepared for the next step in their progress. As soon as we start measuring the success of a program by how many serve missions is the moment we have already failed. God measures success by how many of us return to live with him. That should be our measure also- what are we doing to help each person along that path towards salvation? I dont want to make cookie cutter young men sending them all off on missions and checking the box thinking I was successful. Realistically I have to understand and comprehend that not everyone of my young men in our program is going to serve a mission. In fact, most likely, less than half will committ. Now what? I want youth who dont feel obligated to go because of this continued dogmatic assumption that its a commandment and that failure to serve is demoting for them. Instead, I want youth who feel empowered by the gospel, who want to serve the Lord, who want to go to the temple and do whats right because it feels good. Then, of those who qualify themselves in such manner I would encourage them to serve a mission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

And what really bothers me now are these liberals who are raising their children in genderless homes where they are letting their children pick their gender. There comes a time when I think we have an obligation to confront these people and children and set them straight.

They are confronted.  Trolled even.  They have big microphones but we have... Dr. Peterson and 4chan.  :D

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Heres the stark reality- less than half of our LDS youth serve on missions. In many areas like my own, that number is around 15% who end up serving. Now, of course we can drive home this idea that they should serve but the truth is- isnt that what weve always done anyway? Our approach needs to change. Serving a mission isnt a saving ordinance. The temple endowment however is. That should be what our desire shoukd be- prepare our youth to become endowed in the temple. All else falls into place after that- whether they serve a mission or whatever else they do at least they are prepared for the next step in their progress. As soon as we start measuring the success of a program by how many serve missions is the moment we have already failed. God measures success by how many of us return to live with him. That should be our measure also- what are we doing to help each person along that path towards salvation? I dont want to make cookie cutter young men sending them all off on missions and checking the box thinking I was successful. Realistically I have to understand and comprehend that not everyone of my young men in our program is going to serve a mission. In fact, most likely, less than half will committ. Now what? I want youth who dont feel obligated to go because of this continued dogmatic assumption that its a commandment and that failure to serve is demoting for them. Instead, I want youth who feel empowered by the gospel, who want to serve the Lord, who want to go to the temple and do whats right because it feels good. Then, of those who qualify themselves in such manner I would encourage them to serve a mission.

You say success is how many return to live with him.  Well, that's what a mission does!  Harvest those people that are ready to take that step to return to live with him!  So we need missionaries on that field.  You don't do that by abandoning the concept that young men should serve missions.  I say you do that by helping parents raise their boys to prepare for a mission.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, EricM said:

I'm aware, but OP expressed a worry that the post by Donny Osmond would push youth on the fence about going on a mission to not go, which I find doubtful given his current influence on youth culture in the church.

It's not related to his current influence. It's related to the fact that it's AN example. When looking for excuses, any example will do.

I know of one kid only a few years back who was specifically influenced by just such in his determination to go. And I mean literally. He was singing and making money, etc., and used Donny as an example of doing more good by getting famous, etc. Fortunately he made the choice to go, and he freely admits to being, decidedly, very, very happy about that choice now that he's returned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe every young man and young woman in the LDS Church should serve a mission.  But there is a problem – I think that setting up a program for absolutely every young man and young woman to serve a mission (No Exception) is more in vogue with the Plan of Satan than it is Plan of G-d.  Everyone should be saved in the Celestial Kingdom.  Again, the program for everyone absolutely to be saved in the Celestial kingdom (No Exception) is more in vogue with the Plan of Satan than with the Plan of G-d.

There is a difference between serving a mission and going on a mission.  When I served as a missionary there were some missionaries that were not sufficiently prepared to be a missionary for G-d.  Their lack of preparation appeared to me to do more spiritual damage to themselves and others than if they did not attempt such a noble task so poorly prepared. 

I think part of the problem is that the “world” has no clue how to prepare to be a missionary for G-d.  I had one companion what was born in the church.  He was brilliant guy and the valedictorian of his high school class.  He was not a “bad” kid and he could quote all kinds of scripture – but to be honest he was a 1st class narcissus that could not get along with anyone – even me.  Whatever good he accomplished was not known to me.

I had another companion that was converted to the church by a girlfriend.  When he arrived in the mission he really did not know what he was doing.  When I got him as a companion he did not even know the difference between the Bible and the Book of Mormon.  He was not very bright and I have no idea how he got through high school.  He seemed most unprepared.  But he served well – we both loved our time together and we were very successful.

I do not know what it takes to be prepared for a mission – but I know it when I see it.

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Serving a mission isnt a saving ordinance. The temple endowment however is. That should be what our desire shoukd be- prepare our youth to become endowed in the temple. 

I don't see the difference in preparing our youth to become endowed in the temple and preparing them to serve missions.

3 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

As soon as we start measuring the success of a program by how many serve missions is the moment we have already failed. 

As soon as "we" start measuring anyone else's success we have failed. That's not the point, and it is disingenuous of the so-called "progressives" to imply flat out state that preaching the importance of preparing for a mission is the same as measuring those who have chosen not to go. That's leftist think in spades. You can apply reverse logic to anything like that in efforts to remove any counsel to act in any given way. Tattoos, for example. "Don't get tattoos" is NOT the same thing as "You got a tattoo, therefore you're going to hell."

Telling young men they should go on a mission is not the same as judging someone as doomed if they didn't.

3 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

what are we doing to help each person along that path towards salvation?

Teaching them that they should put off the natural man, selfishness, pride, and do as God and His prophet's have asked us to. Stand up and do their duty as they have been asked to do by God's anointed prophets.

Are you suggesting that teaching something OTHER than this is helping a person towards salvation? Be selfish and prideful and don't bother doing what God has asked you to do?

3 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

I dont want to make cookie cutter young men sending them all off on missions and checking the box thinking I was successful.

Which means we should be helping them to go for the right reasons. Which reasons are selflessness, humility, willingness to serve, obedience, and love of God and fellow-man.

That's what is meant by "prepare" to go on missions.

3 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Instead, I want youth who feel empowered by the gospel, who want to serve the Lord, who want to go to the temple and do whats right because it feels good.

Power in the gospel, though, comes from humility, putting off our selfish selves, sacrifice, long-suffering, and a willingness to submit to whatsoever thing the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon us. Implying otherwise to our youth is selling a lie and will only lead to heartache and apostasy when they've been led their whole lives to believe this isn't a gospel of sacrifice but one of feeling good all the time.

 

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Traveler said:

But there is a problem – I think that setting up a program for absolutely every young man and young woman to serve a mission (No Exception) is more in vogue with the Plan of Satan than it is Plan of G-d.

For the record, and this is nothing new, Satan's "plan" was and is to destroy man's agency. He has no other "alternate plan of salvation". His motivation is not and never was to help others out. He did not and does not believe that surrendering agency to him leads one to bliss and exaltation. He is a liar.

Somehow, we (LDS) tend to put Satan almost on an equal-but-opposite footing with the Father. The Primary-level narrative goes something like this: Father had a plan of salvation; Satan had an alternate plan of salvation. God presented his plan; Satan presented his own. Then we all voted, and those who voted wrong were thrown out.

While I admit that, in a certain sense, and by stretching the definitions of terms, we might characterize our knowledge of premortal occurrences as above, it's a poor characterization. Satan was a deceiver. He did not present an "alternate plan of salvation"; he rebelled against the Father. He rose up in pretended majesty to usurp honor from the Father, which was his only goal. His boast that he would "redeem all" was a lie. I am convinced that those who followed Satan were not merely those stupid enough to be deceived by his fair-sounding (to some) words; rather, they were those who, like Satan, sought for power, control, and unearned honor. They wanted the Father's glory without actually doing the things that the Father did. This was the basis of the "war in heaven", which I imagine must have been vastly more savage even than the wars we have here in mortality.

In any case, I would urge all of us not to give the evil one the smallest amount of credit or benefit of any doubt in this regard. There is no doubt. He is filthy and despicable, and his words are all lies, designed uniformly to enslave and destroy us. Do not waste the smallest amount of pity on a being who so eagerly has embraced his lust for power and control, willingly and happily destroying all he can to try to achieve that end. Satan's "plan" was and is our enslavement and destruction. Period. He never had any other plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I don't see the difference in preparing our youth to become endowed in the temple and preparing them to server missions.

As soon as "we" start measuring anyone else's success we have failed. That's not the point, and it is disingenuous of the so-called "progressives" to imply flat out state that preaching the importance of preparing for a mission is the same as measuring those who have chosen not to go. That's leftist think in spades. You can apply reverse logic to anything like that in efforts to remove any counsel to act in any given way. Tattoos, for example. "Don't get tattoos" is NOT the same thing as "You got a tattoo, therefore you're going to hell."

Telling young men they should go on a mission is not the same as judging someone as doomed if they didn't.

Teaching them that they should put off the natural man, selfishness, pride, and do as God and His prophet's have asked us to. Stand up and do their duty as they have been asked to do by God's anointed prophets.

Are you suggesting that teaching something OTHER than this is helping a person towards salvation? Be selfish and prideful and don't bother doing what God has asked you to do?

Which means we should be helping them to go for the right reasons. Which reasons are selflessness, humility, willingness to serve, obedience, and love of God and fellow-man.

That's what is meant by "prepare" to go on missions.

Power in the gospel, though, comes from humility, putting off our selfish selves, sacrifice, long-suffering, and a willingness to submit to whatsoever thing the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon us. Implying otherwise to our youth is selling a lie and will only lead to heartache and apostasy when they've been led their whole lives to believe this isn't a gospel of sacrifice but one of feeling good all the time.

 

Were worlds apart in understanding.

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