Missionaries Going the Way of...

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

On 11/8/2018 at 2:46 PM, Carborendum said:

People tend to think that pornography is "naked pictures".  But really, pornography is any stimulus that improperly evokes a sexual reaction.  That could be verbal or written.  It could be images - that don't necessarily have to be "naked" by FCC standards. 

I don't disagree with this, but I think it misses the point.  Yes, "soft" porn is everywhere, that is part of the problem for sure--we live in a very sexualized culture.  But I think, as bad as that is, it is merely the tip of the iceberg.  The things are kids are exposed to are much more than Sports Illustrated Swimsuit issue.  Sexting is a big issue for starters.  A few years back, my daughter was sent a "sext" by a young man she had met at Especially For Youth.  She was not surprised...because sexting is so common....but she was angry and let him know it...because he had a girlfriend.  I was appalled that a Latter Day Saint young man she barely knew sent her a nude picture of himself, and her biggest complaint was that he was cheating on his girlfriend.  Weird.   --My daughter is now on a mission, my third missionary    , I should ask her if she sees this situation any differently now.  But the point is, sexting is so common among kids (and adults) these days that she wasn't surprised by THAT.  

Young children are being exposed to porn, hard core porn, accidently.   Kristen Jensen, author of Good Pictures, Bad Pictures (she is a Latter Day Saint) said this in an article:
 

Quote

I'll never forget these stories about pre-schoolers
A young mom is sitting next to her 3 year old daughter on the couch. Her daughter is watching a fun, age-appropriate YouTube video and the mom is on her phone checking her social media. All of a sudden, her daughter cries out in alarm. The mom looks down and sees a horrific video of bestiality involving a tiger. Somehow, her daughter had stumbled upon it on YouTube–and it happened in just a moment!

Maybe you’ve heard about the young boy who was “talking” to “Alexa”–Amazon’s new voice command device that answers questions and orders products? His command to “Play Digger Digger” resulted in a Alexa spouting off a list of XXX books and other sex toy products. The video shows the parents scrambling to shut Alexa up! 

https://protectyoungminds.org/2017/04/06/protect-preschoolers-bad-pictures/

Edited November 13, 2018 by LiterateParakeet

[Guest]

2 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I don't disagree with this, but I think it misses the point.

Yes and no.  I think you also missed my point

My point is that the bar for something to qualify as pornography is pretty low by today's standards.  It is a LOT lower than we usually think.

Your point is that it doesn't matter (within reason) how low or high we set the bar because smut is so readily available that even if we only say XXX porn is porn, they are being exposed to it.

I can see that.  And I don't disagree that such things happen.  I don't have all the statistical numbers.  But we both agree that it is high.  I don't disupute that.  I only point out that the "shock" video you referenced does not depict levels as ubiquitous as the FCC acceptable porn.

I believe my children have all been adequately shielded from XXX material.  But some have seen Rated R level stuff at some point.  To be honest, I'm not as concerned about that because A) it is so infrequent. B) They know to stay away from it and immediately turn from it. 

What I'm more concerned about is the subtle stuff.  It's everywhere.  And they become numbed to it.  It makes them the frog in the water pot.  That is what concerns me more.  The stuff they DON'T turn away from.

[Traveler]

On 11/13/2018 at 4:47 AM, Carborendum said:

Yes and no.  I think you also missed my point

My point is that the bar for something to qualify as pornography is pretty low by today's standards.  It is a LOT lower than we usually think.

Your point is that it doesn't matter (within reason) how low or high we set the bar because smut is so readily available that even if we only say XXX porn is porn, they are being exposed to it.

I can see that.  And I don't disagree that such things happen.  I don't have all the statistical numbers.  But we both agree that it is high.  I don't disupute that.  I only point out that the "shock" video you referenced does not depict levels as ubiquitous as the FCC acceptable porn.

I believe my children have all been adequately shielded from XXX material.  But some have seen Rated R level stuff at some point.  To be honest, I'm not as concerned about that because A) it is so infrequent. B) They know to stay away from it and immediately turn from it. 

What I'm more concerned about is the subtle stuff.  It's everywhere.  And they become numbed to it.  It makes them the frog in the water pot.  That is what concerns me more.  The stuff they DON'T turn away from.

I would add a couple of thoughts - one is what is legal under the law concerning porn.  I do not think any porn (with the exception of children) is illegal.  I do not know but I am not even sure it is illegal to allow children to view "adult" porn.  It has been over 30 years, but when I lived in Washington (Federal Way) area; the public library had a porn section and refused to ban children under the right of free speech and that if parents did not want their children involved in porn at the public library - it was 100% up to the parents to keep their children from that part of the public library.  I believe that porn is protected as free speech and I do not believe that there are any legal ramifications or limits to porn (except for using children).  The reality is that parents cannot realistically think that they can shield their children from pron - rather we must teach our children to reject it when they are exposed - and that is a very difficult task with that I am not sure parents are equipped and prepared for. 

The Second Thought is - that I am not sure that subjecting (or allowing) children to be involved with violent entertainment is not actually worse of a threat than sexual porn.  I wonder if children that are exposed to the idea that true heroes are justified in violence towards the bad guys that provoke them to rage. 

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

On 11/12/2018 at 7:36 AM, Rob Osborn said:

Serving a mission is not a salvanic ordinance.

If they had the same current interview questions in place 30 years ago, I would have been wholly ineligible from serving. So, how would one be able to keep a commandment from which he was ineligible from?

Many thought of concern.  Serving a mission is not an ordinance - but it is the will of G-d.  Paul said in essence, "To him that knows to do good and and does not do it - to them it is sin."  Being and missionary is not an option - it is a commandment.  Being called as a "full time" missionary may be an option but being worthy to receive and accept a call to service from G-d is a commandment - and I would purport that if someone does not repent an attitude to not serve or fulfill a calling - they are not candidates for exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom.

In short - I do not believe someone has to serve a mission (even if called to do so) to obtain exaltation - But I do believe that they must repent - which I believe requires sorrow and regret not doing as commanded.  But I also believe it is better to not serve a mission and repent than to accept the call but refuse to magnify the calling and not repent for not magnifying the call.

 

The Traveler

[carlimac]

On 11/9/2018 at 12:55 PM, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

This is not a result of our licentious society. It is a parental failure and I think this is why the Prophet is changing so many things to encourage gospel-centric homes.

I disagree. Licentious society has entered the walls of our homes. It comes in through the tiniest of cracks. You would have to be a complete hermit to not be influenced by the world around us.

[carlimac]

On 11/11/2018 at 2:39 AM, askandanswer said:

My oldest daughter and son completed honourable missions and my second son is currently serving. My second daughter has no plans and no desire to serve a mission. I grieve for her because of the amazing amount of blessings and growth she will miss out on if she does not serve a mission. I believe that there are blessings and growth that come from a mission that cannot be received in any other way, and I am greatly saddened by the thought that she is turning down the opportunity to receive these blessings. My desire for her to serve a mission is not driven by the fact that it is a commandment/teaching/objective/encouragement for young people to serve a mission, or by the thought of all the people she might help to bring to Christ, but by what I expect she will miss out on if she doesn't' serve. I acknowledge that my motivation has selfish elements to it inasmuch as it is driven by what I believe is best for her, rather than what the prophets have counselled, or the blessings that she could help to bring to others..

My daughter went on a mission. I wish she hadn't. She is now behind in her schooling because taking that break got her out of the habit of university level studying.  She got straight A's her first semester before leaving. Now she barely gets Bs and probably won't get into her major of choice because of it, let alone losing her scholarship.   I actually advised her not to go but to get her degree first and then to go on a mission after.   But she was determined. She's really struggling now. I think her mission changed her in not-so-positive ways. She loved it, but strangely enough, came home more tentative and insecure than she was before. And way, way more serious!!

Another daughter had a mission call and then turned it down to feel out a new promising relationship. She ended up marrying the guy and now is raising a young son. She is strong spiritually, serves those around her with her whole heart and from my perspective is no less of a person because of it.  All three of my children who have served missions have been in areas with high LDS populations and to be completely honest, despite their best efforts, it was a drag much of the time. They struggled to find people who were interested.  I think they blessed people's lives in spite of not being able to teach all that much. But they listen to the stories of their cousins who served in foreign countries and were involved in tons of conversions and feel a little "less than" for not having had as much success. 

I went on a mission. It was a fascinating cultural experience. But I wasn't involved in any conversions that lasted. Three baptisms and only one of them ever came back to church after.  And the rest of my work as a welfare missionary really didn't result in any great changes in anyone. So truthfully, it was a waste of time. I could have gone on to get a higher degree and maybe married a couple years earlier. If I could go back and do it again, I wouldn't go. 

[askandanswer]

I've always thought to myself that having one active convert is enough to make a mission worthwhile. 

[carlimac]

On 11/12/2018 at 6:06 AM, Lindy said:

Several years ago, my ward had a RS luncheon where a speaker was a 16-17 year old young man from another ward who gave a very enlightening talk- about his addiction to porn that he faces everyday of his life. He started at 12 years old. Twelve! He had barely graduated from Church Primary when he started down that road!

The young man got help to try and overcome his problem and said as with any other addiction it is a struggle daily. And he admitted that he was raised in a very God and Christ based, proper LDS home with both parents doing everything the right way....... but his interest in those things forbidden .... basically just drew him in. He said all it took was that first look. 

The whole point of his talk (that I got) was that even the best parent(s) in the world can't control the urges of their children, or everything sinful that child comes in contact with in childhood. We, as parents can only do the best we can do and pray that our children can fight their inner demons of temptation when that time comes, and make the right choices of turning away from that first look or taste of sin.

Satan has made it so easy, has incorporated it into basically everything, and has followed the scriptures by enticing people into calling evil good, and good evil. And he has gone/going after the children, to destroy their innocence and keep them from doing what is right.

 

One of my sons was exposed to it at his friend's house- the home of youth pastor from another church, at age 11. We were just so naive, thinking that "our family doesn't do those kinds of things", that his addiction went on for 6 years before his brother discovered it on the family computer and told us. He's 26 now and we don't talk to him about it anymore. I don't know if he still deals with it or not. But when we first found out he had counseling. We didn't punish him- just tried to get him the right kind of help. When he confessed to our bishop he was essentially dis-fellowshipped. Couldn't take or pass the sacrament for months even though he wasn't viewing porn at the time. He tried so hard to quit and would for awhile- months at a time, but he always found ways to access it again.   He wasn't defiant- just addicted. We moved to a different state. Son went to BYU but wasn't perfect during that time. The new stake president was less hard on him and helped him get ready for a mission. He went, served honorably although struggled with masturbation during his mission- he'd wake up at night in the middle of it. It was really frustrating for him. After his mission he returned to porn off and on. His BYU bishops tried to help but there was a limit to what they could do. This was all during the time when the addicting nature of porn was less stressed than the sin of viewing it. So my son felt really lousy about himself most of the time. 

Ultimately he left the Church.   I think it may have been too hard to keep feeling so bad about himself because of the external pressure. He also lost his testimony of God- at BYU of all places. But he remains a very good-hearted person who tries his hardest to help those in need and is studying medicine. He keeps the Word of Wisdom and doesn't sleep around- hasn't even had a girlfriend for 4 years. 

It all makes me so sad. But even if he didn't see it in the home of this particular friend, he would have encountered it somewhere else- teenage boy parties were notorious for viewing it and he would probably have had this problem anyway.  

[Rob Osborn]

8 hours ago, Traveler said:

Many thought of concern.  Serving a mission is not an ordinance - but it is the will of G-d.  Paul said in essence, "To him that knows to do good and and does not do it - to them it is sin."  Being and missionary is not an option - it is a commandment.  Being called as a "full time" missionary may be an option but being worthy to receive and accept a call to service from G-d is a commandment - and I would purport that if someone does not repent an attitude to not serve or fulfill a calling - they are not candidates for exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom.

In short - I do not believe someone has to serve a mission (even if called to do so) to obtain exaltation - But I do believe that they must repent - which I believe requires sorrow and regret not doing as commanded.  But I also believe it is better to not serve a mission and repent than to accept the call but refuse to magnify the calling and not repent for not magnifying the call.

 

The Traveler

I disagree on the point of it being a sin if one chooses not to go, or is unable to go because of conditions either in or out of their control.

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

I disagree on the point of it being a sin if one chooses not to go, or is unable to go because of conditions either in or out of their control.

What do you think of the scripture?  Truth or a lie?

Quote

James 4:

17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

My personal plan is not to stand before G-d at the last day arguing over what was or was not a sin - my plan is to be repentant and beg for forgiveness - especially those things that I was unaware was sinful at the time.

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

What do you think of the scripture?  Truth or a lie?

My personal plan is not to stand before G-d at the last day arguing over what was or was not a sin - my plan is to be repentant and beg for forgiveness - especially those things that I was unaware was sinful at the time.

 

The Traveler

Look, I am tired of debating this. It is not a sin to not serve a full-time mission. Believe what you will but your belief is completely outside of church beliefs. One needn't to repent from not serving a mission.

[anatess2]

7 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Look, I am tired of debating this. It is not a sin to not serve a full-time mission. Believe what you will but your belief is completely outside of church beliefs. One needn't to repent from not serving a mission.

The reason you’re frustrated is because you keep on misrepresenting what people are saying here.  Of course one need not repent from not serving a mission!  But one MAY HAVE TO repent for one’s REASONS for not serving a mission!

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

The reason you’re frustrated is because you keep on misrepresenting what people are saying here.  Of course one need not repent from not serving a mission!  But one MAY HAVE TO repent for one’s REASONS for not serving a mission!

That's not what he said. Let me quote-

21 hours ago, Traveler said:

In short - I do not believe someone has to serve a mission (even if called to do so) to obtain exaltation - But I do believe that they must repent - which I believe requires sorrow and regret not doing as commanded

He States specifically that serving a mission is a commandment and that not obeying that command is a sin of which one needs to repent.

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

20 hours ago, carlimac said:

I disagree. Licentious society has entered the walls of our homes. It comes in through the tiniest of cracks. You would have to be a complete hermit to not be influenced by the world around us.

There are tools and ways to keep ourselves and our families un-spotted from the evil around us.

[SpiritDragon]

1 hour ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

There are tools and ways to keep ourselves and our families un-spotted from the evil around us.

I agree with what I perceive to be the main premise of your statement, but I also agree with @carlimac's point. I think it's important to differentiate between ways we can reinforce our families against the evil around us and exposure to the evil around us. Without being a completely sheltered hermit, it would be impossible to avoid exposure to so many evils that are considered normal these days. However, you can definitely build a home that insulates against the evil by greatly limiting what exposure enters the home and preparing young minds with correct principles in advance to help them side-step many of the pitfalls that threaten them day by day. But, there is exposure that happens outside of parental consent, sometimes even in church where children from homes with different standards bring undesirable actions and "lessons" with them to other children in the church group. The only way to be sure one isn't exposed is to avoid contact with other humans. We just happen to have other ways available to strengthen ourselves and our families so we can live in the world but not of the world.

[askandanswer]

18 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

I disagree on the point of it being a sin if one chooses not to go, or is unable to go because of conditions either in or out of their control.

I think on this particular matter, part of a recent statement from the church's website might support @Rob Osborn

 In some cases, candidates will be honorably excused from any formal missionary service.

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-changes-recommendation-process-young-missionaries

[anatess2]

22 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

That's not what he said. Let me quote-

He States specifically that serving a mission is a commandment and that not obeying that command is a sin of which one needs to repent.

Which is the same thing I stated.  It is not the failure to go that you need to repent of (as Traveler has specifically stated going/not going is not the issue).  It's the REASON for not going.

Edited November 18, 2018 by anatess2

[Rob Osborn]

1 minute ago, anatess2 said:

Which is the same thing I stated.  It is not the failure to go that you need to repent of (as Traveler has specifically stated going/not going is not the issue).  It's the REASON for not going.

That's not what he said. I'm not gonna debate this anymore.

[anatess2]

13 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

That's not what he said. I'm not gonna debate this anymore.

Well, that's what I understood @Traveler said.  Maybe you're reading Traveler wrong.  I highly doubt that Traveler believes a boy not serving a mission due to his cerebral palsy needs to repent.

Pres. Kimball  - 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.   

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.

While there is no compulsion for him to do any of these things, he should do them for his own good.

 

 

[Traveler]

On 11/16/2018 at 11:17 PM, Rob Osborn said:

Look, I am tired of debating this. It is not a sin to not serve a full-time mission. Believe what you will but your belief is completely outside of church beliefs. One needn't to repent from not serving a mission.

What I have said is that it is a sin to avoid doing anything one knows to be good.  I quoted a scripture reference.   I can understand the case where something may be better.  But I am very interested what you may think might be better than serving a mission - if that is indeed the case.

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

3 hours ago, Traveler said:

What I have said is that it is a sin to avoid doing anything one knows to be good.  I quoted a scripture reference.   I can understand the case where something may be better.  But I am very interested what you may think might be better than serving a mission - if that is indeed the case.

 

The Traveler

Let me ask you this because there seems to be a disconnect with what entails being a "sin". I married a non-member. We were later sealed in the temple years later. Was it thus a "sin" to not marry initially in the temple?

Another example- On my way to my son's birthday party I had to stop and get gas in my car. We passed a lady in a wheelchair struggling to get up an incline. I was in a rush. I stopped and got gas and then circled back to help but by that time another motorist had stopped to assist her. Was it thus a "sin" on my part for not initially stopping?

When I was in my youth, almost everyone of my elder peers in the Aaronic priesthood was breaking the law of Chasity and/or violating the word of wisdom. Through circumstance, I too chose that path. What I did was wrong, it was "sin". Being unworthy to serve I decided not serve a mission. I felt my previous sins far surpassed the worthiness required to serve an honorable mission. If they had the same criteria then as they do today I would have been denied any possibility of serving even with complete repentance. And this is the point. 

There are lots of things we should do, like have more meaningful prayers, greater devotion to serve others, etc. But sometimes because of circumstance things just don't work out. God truly defines sin as things which pertain to the carnal man. Failure to be perfect in all things is not sin. Just as it is not a sin to marry outside the temple, so too is it neither a sin to fail to help every single person in every possible situation. Young men who are worthy and able physically, mentally, socially to have been asked to serve a mission of some sort. Failure to meet the requirements do not constitute being a sinner in that thing.

[Guest]

Being self-reliant is a commandment (this is stated in the study materials for the self-reliance class).  But there are some who cannot due to mental or emotional (and sometimes financial) handicaps.

[Traveler]

9 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Let me ask you this because there seems to be a disconnect with what entails being a "sin". I married a non-member. We were later sealed in the temple years later. Was it thus a "sin" to not marry initially in the temple?

Another example- On my way to my son's birthday party I had to stop and get gas in my car. We passed a lady in a wheelchair struggling to get up an incline. I was in a rush. I stopped and got gas and then circled back to help but by that time another motorist had stopped to assist her. Was it thus a "sin" on my part for not initially stopping?

When I was in my youth, almost everyone of my elder peers in the Aaronic priesthood was breaking the law of Chasity and/or violating the word of wisdom. Through circumstance, I too chose that path. What I did was wrong, it was "sin". Being unworthy to serve I decided not serve a mission. I felt my previous sins far surpassed the worthiness required to serve an honorable mission. If they had the same criteria then as they do today I would have been denied any possibility of serving even with complete repentance. And this is the point. 

There are lots of things we should do, like have more meaningful prayers, greater devotion to serve others, etc. But sometimes because of circumstance things just don't work out. God truly defines sin as things which pertain to the carnal man. Failure to be perfect in all things is not sin. Just as it is not a sin to marry outside the temple, so too is it neither a sin to fail to help every single person in every possible situation. Young men who are worthy and able physically, mentally, socially to have been asked to serve a mission of some sort. Failure to meet the requirements do not constitute being a sinner in that thing.

Failure to be perfect is a sin.  Sin is overcome by repentance and only by and through repentance.  All that are not perfect and do not repent will remain imperfect in their sins.  Those that do not marry in the temple - should have repented as part of their preparations to be sealed for eternity in the temple.

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

6 hours ago, Traveler said:

Failure to be perfect is a sin.  Sin is overcome by repentance and only by and through repentance.  All that are not perfect and do not repent will remain imperfect in their sins.  Those that do not marry in the temple - should have repented as part of their preparations to be sealed for eternity in the temple.

 

The Traveler

That's not correct. Marrying outside the temple is not a sin.

[anatess2]

54 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

That's not correct. Marrying outside the temple is not a sin.

Sin is pursuant to knowledge.  It is not a sin for those who has not made the covenants for temple worthiness.  It is a sin to those who are temple worthy to choose not to marry in the temple.  In your case, your wife does not have sufficient knowledge to marry in the temple.  But, if she was temple worthy and you decided to marry outside the temple, the reason for such marital arrangement could be a shackle tied to your ankles.