Serving Without A Name Tag?

[Ironhold]

As I've noted before, my personal circumstances were such that when I was 18 going on a formal mission would have been a hardship for my family. Instead, I made the internet my mission and wound up being part of the generation that pioneered the Bloggernacle as we know now. 

Problem is, because local and stake leadership did not understand the internet at the time they feared it and so saw my efforts as a waste of time. In their eyes it was mandatory for all young men to serve formal missions, and I spent over a decade getting verbally shanked because of it by the very people who could have been critical in helping the work along. 

At the last Conference, one of the speakers basically declared that serving a mission was a requirement. Cue members of the church taking to social media to administer the kind of verbal shanking I once got, telling other members that unless they went out and got that name tag they were sinners and rebelling against God. 

Cue me - and a few others - trying to explain that not everyone is a good fit for formal service, and that there are ways to serve without that name tag. 

Has anyone else here encountered anything of the sort since Conference? 

I'm starting to get worried now, as I remember how what happened back then caused almost an entire generation of young men to either leave the area or leave the church because they, too, were getting blasted and wanted to get away from it. 

[Carborendum]

12 hours ago, Ironhold said:

Problem is, because local and stake leadership did not understand the internet at the time they feared it and so saw my efforts as a waste of time. In their eyes it was mandatory for all young men to serve formal missions, and I spent over a decade getting verbally shanked because of it by the very people who could have been critical in helping the work along. 

I believe that sometimes the message gets lost in the messaging.  When Pres. Kimball declared that "every young man is to serve a mission," it seemed pretty clear to me.  But when pressed about it, I reworded it that "all young men are REQUIRED to serve a mission."  And that was clearer, but not quite accurate.

When I heard Pres Nelson's wording, it seemed a lot clearer to me.

"For young men, it is a priesthood responsibility."  That made a lot more sense.  It pointed out how important it is that we do this.  But it also leaves some room for exceptions.  Medical/financial hardship on the family is certainly an exception.  So is physical or psychological handicap.

Let me be clear.  I disagree with your wording that you were "not a good fit."  There is no "good fit" for a mission.  We're simply to be instruments.  That was something that I didn't learn until the very end of my mission.

Now, to address your core issue...

What seems to bother you is not the "requirement" or "responsibility."  It is the reaction that others had/have towards you for not serving a full-time mission.

IT'S NONE OF THEIR FRAGGING BUSINESS!!!  Tell them to go phillips themselves.

Whether you were an exception or not is between you and the Lord and no one else.  If you were an exception, then the Lord knows your heart.  If you just "made up an excuse" then you'll have the Lord to answer to, not these yahoos who don't know a thing about you.

Edited 1 hour ago by Carborendum

[mirkwood]

I served a mission.

 

I don't think a mission is right for everyone.  I get some heat from a lot of members for that position.  I'm also not afraid to tell them they are wrong.