Missionary Numbers - stats, ugh.


NeedleinA
 Share

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, paracaidista508 said:

One of the best zone leaders I ever had was hated in his stake because he had took the virginity of many of the young women. He too did amazing things on his mission and was an amazing leader that taught me so much about what a good missionary is.

Another great missionary that exhibited more love than  could ever hope for grew up in Vegas, had a tattoo on his thigh and was huge into partying before his mission. He was and is one of the most kind and bold people I know. True liver of charity.

I could probably think of more examples if I thought hard enough, but I won’t.

 

 

 

And nowadays with the raised bar, At least wo of those missionaries would never be allowed to serve a mission no matter what. I may be wrong though.

I served 2 years ago

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MormonGator said:

As someone who knows absolutely nothing about the military, what's the difference between "enlisted" and "commissioned"? I know there is one.

Disclaimer: I am not a military man. My father was an enlisted man, but he never really talked about it. I didn't even find out until his funeral that he was a sergeant (NCO). So what I know is what I've gleaned from talking with military friends and occasional reading. Don't believe anything I write without checking it against some unimpeachable source, like Wikipedia or the guy next door.

A man (or, today, a woman) can sign up or enlist in the military, for which they have historically received some (minimal) pay and some (minimal) living situation, aka room and board. The enlistment was normally for some limited time period, sort of an indentured servitude. Literally almost any able-bodied man could enlist, regardless of criminal history or nationality. Of course, having enlisted, the man was at the mercy of the merciless military, to do their bidding or be hanged as a traitor. In times of need, young men and boys could be drafted (compelled), or even impressed (kidnapped), into enlisted military service.

The officers are a different matter. You don't draft an officer. Historically, these were professional soldiers, military-minded men who chose the military as a career*. In order to be an officer, a man must have been recommended by some important, influential figure as a sponsor. In medieval times, such influential men would commission fighting men, outfitting them with weapons and armor (an expensive proposition) and giving them an objective. There was usually a reward offered as compensation for achieving the objective, not to mention the ageless practice of despoiling the conquered. Clever, ruthless military men could and did become fabulously wealthy from such conquests.

*It was common in seventeenth- to nineteenth-century Europe for military commissions to be treated as chattel, offered as favors or even auctioned off. Thus, for example, if an English man wanted to be a "gentleman" -- a member of high society -- and was not born into such a position or didn't have the inherited means to hold onto it, his options were very limited. He might possibly find a way to become a clergyman, which position was considered a gentleman. If he was very rich, he might make a large contribution to the king or other nobility in an effort to buy a title. Otherwise, his best hope was to find a way to purchase a military commission. If he survived (both literally and socially) the experience, he could retire from the military as a bona fide gentleman, and possibly with a lot of money, depending on his fortunes of war.

In the US today, the commission is usually sponsored by a senator, who only rarely personally knows the individuals s/he sponsors. Military recruiters sign young people up, and the weeding-out process begins.

Not all officers are commissioned. Among the enlisted men, there are non-commissioned officers, or NCOs. These are enlisted men with a lot of experience who are put in charge of less experienced men. In the US Army (and Air Force?), these are the corporals and sergeants. I believe the Navy calls their NCOs petty officers. There is also another class of officer that lacks a commission, called a warrant officer. These are typically specialists in some technical area, such as IT. In the US, warrant officers are paid and more or less treated on par with commissioned officers. (I believe it's also the case that chief warrant officers are commissioned by the President.)

Also, note that the Marines are a different show. They call their positions differently from both Army and Navy, and if I understand correctly, they draw all of their officers from the enlisted ranks -- which is yet another reason the Marines consider themselves physically and morally superior to all other military units. That certainly appeals to my ideas of fair play and equality, but I imagine it introduces a whole new set of headaches.

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, paracaidista508 said:

Um last I heard if you fornicate prior to mission you are not going no matter what. Again I may be wrong. Am I?

Yes, you are wrong. That much I'm sure of.

I am not an authority, but my understanding is that having a child (i.e. being a parent), being party to an elective abortion, forcible rape, and engaging in homosexual activity are permanent exclusions to missionary service. Fornication per se is certainly a grievous sin, but afaik a repentant fornicator who does not fall into one of the previously listed categories can still serve a full-time mission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Vort said:

Yes, you are wrong. That much I'm sure of.

I am not an authority, but my understanding is that having a child (i.e. being a parent), being party to an elective abortion, forcible rape, and engaging in homosexual activity are permanent exclusions to missionary service. Fornication per se is certainly a grievous sin, but afaik a repentant fornicator who does not fall into one of the previously listed categories can still serve a full-time mission.

You are correct. As long as they've been through the repentance process, fornication does not permanently prevent someone from serving a mission, unless one of the other issues you mentioned (abortion, having a child, divorce) is present, and even then exceptions can be made although it requires working with church leadership. However, homosexuality does not bar a missionary from serving, as long as any homosexual actions have been sincerely repented of.

Edited by Midwest LDS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Someone higher up the chain than me might have to answer that.

But I doubt it. Seriously, highly doubt it.

So the standard really hasn't changed then except for perhaps the timeline. When I was that age they could have sex / girlfriend and go a few weeks later...Now its a few months maybe. Well that is not a higher bar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/9/2018 at 6:08 PM, NeedleinA said:

Today, I don't get that feel at all from the youth in our stake, it is way more of an optional "if" you feel like it.
I wonder were the "optional" sentiment comes from as I don't see the parents I know of being the source of this shift?

I think it is due to the better aspects of society blurring the spiritual obligation to serve a mission. For example, as a society we are more sensitive to the special needs of youth who may not have qualified for a mission years ago, but for whom we now have more creative options and an attitude of "no harm, no foul" if they decide not to go, which can seep into the attitude of an otherwise able and willing youth to serve. Another example is, as a society we have opened up more opportunities and expectations for young women, but a mission for them is still optional, yet young men have been trained to see himself just as "equal" to a young woman as a young woman sees herself as "equal" to him-- so the social roles and spiritual obligations have blurred and both assume their service is optional. While optional, it is still inspired, and young women seem to express getting that inspiration more than young men. We have a growing emphasis on helping prepare young people to  handle a more complex world (which must take place whether they are on a mission or not), but this adds another layer of second-guessing as to whether the young person is ready or willing to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, paracaidista508 said:

So the standard really hasn't changed then except for perhaps the timeline. When I was that age they could have sex / girlfriend and go a few weeks later...Now its a few months maybe. Well that is not a higher bar.

Actually, it's not being able to go at all if you read the directions. The guidance is that long-term or repeated sexual relationships disqualify a young person from going.

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Vort said:

Disclaimer: I am not a military man. My father was an enlisted man, but he never really talked about it. I didn't even find out until his funeral that he was a sergeant (NCO). So what I know is what I've gleaned from talking with military friends and occasional reading. Don't believe anything I write without checking it against some unimpeachable source, like Wikipedia or the guy next door.

A man (or, today, a woman) can sign up or enlist in the military, for which they have historically received some (minimal) pay and some (minimal) living situation, aka room and board. The enlistment was normally for some limited time period, sort of an indentured servitude. Literally almost any able-bodied man could enlist, regardless of criminal history or nationality. Of course, having enlisted, the man was at the mercy of the merciless military, to do their bidding or be hanged as a traitor. In times of need, young men and boys could be drafted (compelled), or even impressed (kidnapped), into enlisted military service.

The officers are a different matter. You don't draft an officer. Historically, these were professional soldiers, military-minded men who chose the military as a career*. In order to be an officer, a man must have been recommended by some important, influential figure as a sponsor. In medieval times, such influential men would commission fighting men, outfitting them with weapons and armor (an expensive proposition) and giving them an objective. There was usually a reward offered as compensation for achieving the objective, not to mention the ageless practice of despoiling the conquered. Clever, ruthless military men could and did become fabulously wealthy from such conquests.

*It was common in seventeenth- to nineteenth-century Europe for military commissions to be treated as chattel, offered as favors or even auctioned off. Thus, for example, if an English man wanted to be a "gentleman" -- a member of high society -- and was not born into such a position or didn't have the inherited means to hold onto it, his options were very limited. He might possibly find a way to become a clergyman, which position was considered a gentleman. If he was very rich, he might make a large contribution to the king or other nobility in an effort to buy a title. Otherwise, his best hope was to find a way to purchase a military commission. If he survived (both literally and socially) the experience, he could retire from the military as a bona fide gentleman, and possibly with a lot of money, depending on his fortunes of war.

In the US today, the commission is usually sponsored by a senator, who only rarely personally knows the individuals s/he sponsors. Military recruiters sign young people up, and the weeding-out process begins.

Not all officers are commissioned. Among the enlisted men, there are non-commissioned officers, or NCOs. These are enlisted men with a lot of experience who are put in charge of less experienced men. In the US Army (and Air Force?), these are the corporals and sergeants. I believe the Navy calls their NCOs petty officers. There is also another class of officer that lacks a commission, called a warrant officer. These are typically specialists in some technical area, such as IT. In the US, warrant officers are paid and more or less treated on par with commissioned officers. (I believe it's also the case that chief warrant officers are commissioned by the President.)

Also, note that the Marines are a different show. They call their positions differently from both Army and Navy, and if I understand correctly, they draw all of their officers from the enlisted ranks -- which is yet another reason the Marines consider themselves physically and morally superior to all other military units. That certainly appeals to my ideas of fair play and equality, but I imagine it introduces a whole new set of headaches.

And this folks is among the many reasons military service is discouraged by many...not just lds folks. This info here was valid to some degree up to maybe ww1. After that it is a different ballgame. I can elaborate if you wish, but todays military (Post Vietnam era) is wildly different than your description here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Vort said:

Yes, you are wrong. That much I'm sure of.

I am not an authority, but my understanding is that having a child (i.e. being a parent), being party to an elective abortion, forcible rape, and engaging in homosexual activity are permanent exclusions to missionary service. Fornication per se is certainly a grievous sin, but afaik a repentant fornicator who does not fall into one of the previously listed categories can still serve a full-time mission.

hmm ok then so the bar wasn't raised I guess

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Actually, it's not being able to go at all if you read the directions. The guidance is that long-term or repeated sexual relationships disqualify a young person from going.

Yea....like the guy who stole the virginity of several of the girls in the stake... I guess if you are a roving player its ok, but if its just one girl then we have a problem with that??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Actually, it's not being able to go at all if you read the directions. The guidance is that long-term or repeated sexual relationships disqualify a young person from going.

Can you show me where it says this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, paracaidista508 said:

Yea....like the guy who stole the virginity of several of the girls in the stake... I guess if you are a roving player its ok, but if its just one girl then we have a problem with that??

That has nothing to do with the guidance, but only with an exception to the intended outcome or application of the guidance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, paracaidista508 said:

hmm ok then so the bar wasn't raised I guess

Well what is the bar?

You can’t go on a mission if you ever committed a sexual sin? Or you can’t go on a mission if you haven’t repented of commiting a sexual sin?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Fether said:

Well what is the bar?

You can’t go on a mission if you ever committed a sexual sin? Or you can’t go on a mission if you haven’t repented of commiting a sexual sin?

I have no idea....all that's been said is it has been raised...I figured I would roll with a common sin that is pretty bad and apparently it is still ok to fornicate...just repent and you are good. That was a requirement then too, but you could "resolve" it in a few weeks.  Im thinking nothing has really changed other than a timeline.

They still send kids who did whatever prior to mission

They still send kids who openly don't want to go, but with a cattle prod go anyway so what has changed?

As for the balance who are excited to go and there are many...well they go and do their thing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the best zone leaders I ever had was hated in his stake because he had took the virginity of many of the young women. He too did amazing things on his mission and was an amazing leader that taught me so much about what a good missionary is.

Based on several other posts you’ve made, @paracaidista508, I was under the impression you hadn’t served a mission.

 

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MormonGator said:

Thanks. I don't know that much about the military. I've heard the terms (Enlisted, Officer, commissioned) before I don't know the differences. 

There is SO much more to it than that.  If I remember, I’ll break it down tonight.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I agree with the idea that some rules are less effective -- perhaps even end up being theoretically detrimental in some cases. But I also believe that obedience brings blessings, and that is even more true when it comes to missionary work. The missionary who strictly follows all "rules" will be more effective as a missionary than the one who blows them off, even if the rules are theoretically less than perfect.

I don't know I was AP and I made my share of mistakes on my mission. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam unfeatured this topic
  • pam featured this topic

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