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 Monday at 12:21 PM 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.

[estradling75]

There are two ways to serve the Lord.

The first way is what the scriptures call using our Agency to do good.  This is us using our mind and will to try to bring to bring to past much righteousness.
The Lord commands this and we spend much of our life in this state.  This is good. It is us using our Initiative our Agency which God approves of.  But it has a big limit. It is limited by our ability to foresee to predict the best way.  Using the terminology of this thread this is the Non-Black Tag service, and it is literally were we will spend most our lives in our efforts of serving God.

The second form of service is putting yourself on the altar.  This includes all your strengths and abilities but also all your flaws, weakness, and hindrances, trusting that the Lord knows exactly what you really need and can do. This is something God want/expects/asks from all of us. Both forms are from a "Desire to Serve" but this last one is harder and requires, greater faith, because we do not get to control it.  That is scary.  Trusting the Lord's wisdom especially when manifested through his flawed servants is hard. Using the terminology of this thread we can call this "Black Tag" service although Black Tags are not always used.

Not surprisingly those that the Lord has called to help people grow and develop spiritually are going to push hard in their own flawed way to get everyone to do "Black Tag" type service when the opportunity is there.  That is literally what they are called to do.  Can they mess this up? Of course they can.  But their flaws do not make it wrong.  The idea of helping people at a young age come to trust and know God is golden... We just screw it up a lot.

The problem we get is when people doom say when someone misses a chance.  We all miss chances and make mistakes, that is literally what the atonement is for.  A young man who for whatever reason does not serve at 19 will not be the same person at 30 or 40 or 50.  (Same can be said for those that do serve) And if you are dealing with a young person who does not go...  We are not dealing with an apostate in the making (our actions can push them that way though) we are dealing with someone who is having a Faith struggle because missions are hard leaps of Faith and not everyone is ready for that at older ages much less younger age.  And don't get me started on those serving for wrong reasons.  (Because if you are not doing a mission out of a desire to serve the Lord you are doing it wrong, but even then you might end up getting there so it is hard to tell)

[NeuroTypical]

15 hours ago, Ironhold said:

At the last Conference, one of the speakers basically declared that serving a mission was a requirement.

Gonna need a link to this claim.   I looked at the session summaries here, but nothing like you describe.

I remember someone talking about a mission, but I did not get the vibe you're getting.   Since we can easily review both the video and transcript, it might be helpful.  There are endless, endless times where I've seen lots of folks go off half-cocked about what this or that speaker "basically declared", only to find out that no, that's not what they said.  The truth tends to be helpful here.

Edited Monday at 02:49 PM by NeuroTypical

[LDSGator]

Don’t worry about it. A formal mission isn’t for everyone. And there’s nothing wrong with not going or being sent home early. 

I had several members ask me if I served a mission. When I said no they looked disappointed but who cares? Ironically one looked sadder when I said I wasn’t an Eagle Scout and said the boy scouts weren’t my thing. 

Edited Monday at 03:28 PM by LDSGator

[zil2]

43 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Gonna need a link to this claim. 

"True to the Faith That Our Parents Have Cherished" - Elder Hans T. Boom, Saturday Afternoon Session

Quote

Thinking about a sacrifice that will truly bless your life, please consider and pray about the invitation of our beloved prophet, President Russell M. Nelson, when he asked “every worthy, able young man to prepare for and serve a mission. For Latter-day Saint young men, missionary service is a priesthood responsibility. …

“For … young and able sisters, a mission is also a powerful, but optional, opportunity.”

You could be called as a service or a teaching missionary. Both types of missionaries contribute to the same goal of bringing souls to Christ, each in their own unique and powerful way.

With the footnote to President Nelson's April 2022 talk, "Preaching the Gospel of Peace":

Quote

Today I reaffirm strongly that the Lord has asked every worthy, able young man to prepare for and serve a mission. For Latter-day Saint young men, missionary service is a priesthood responsibility. You young men have been reserved for this time when the promised gathering of Israel is taking place. As you serve missions, you play a pivotal role in this unprecedented event!

FWIW

Edited Monday at 03:30 PM by zil2

[mirkwood]

1 hour ago, LDSGator said:

And there’s nothing wrong with not going or being sent home early. 

 

 

Actually it depends on why an early homecoming.

[NeuroTypical]

Ah yes.  The urging from our leaders is "every worthy and able young man".   So people see a young man not going on a mission, and they feel it's their right to gossip, unrighteously judge, and demand "so which is it?  You not worthy, or you not able?"

Here's the thing about unrighteous judgments and demanding things: @Carborendum's response is a righteous response.  Maybe it needs to be phrased a bit more civilly (although 'go phillips yourself' is my new favorite term of the month).   But they are doing wrong by butting in to things that aren't their business, and it would be nice if they would stop doing wrong. 

Here's why they're wrong: 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1999/08/judge-not-and-judging?lang=eng

"Thus, we must refrain from making final judgments on people because we lack the knowledge and the wisdom to do so."
Translation: If you're telling me I'm going to hell for not serving a mission, you are being unrighteously judgmental, and you should go phillips yourself.

Third, to be righteous, an intermediate judgment must be within our stewardship. We should not presume to exercise and act upon judgments that are outside our personal responsibilities.
Translation: Mind your own business.

Fourth, we should, if possible, refrain from judging until we have adequate knowledge of the facts.
Translation: You don't know me, go phillips yourself.

 

People acting like gossipy intrusive busybodies are everywhere.  In and out of the church.  When you encounter one, they are best dealt with from a position of Godly righteousness.  They are sinning with their unrighteous judgments, they are sinning with their butting-in to things that aren't their business, they are sinning when they assume from a distance that they know best when they don't.   You're just standing there being a disciple of Christ, and they show up peddling their nonsense.  They are the first offenders.   It's ok to treat them as such.

Now, folks with stewardship (parents, teachers, quorum advisers, bishops, stake presidents) get to try to urge and work with as many young men as they can, to help them be worthy and able.  They get to care.  They get to try.  But the second they use some high-pressure sales tactic like "go on a mission or you're going to hell", their behavior should be called out as luciferian, and we can ask them to stop preaching satan's doctrine.  From the same article: refrain from judging people and only judge situations.  That's the secret.  We must not unrighteously judge, but we are COMMANDED to judge righteously.  That means we judge situations, within our stewardship, with adequate knowledge of the facts.

 

@Ironhold, you didn't go on a mission.  That's between you and the Lord.   You have nothing to prove to me, or anyone else.

 

Related story: 

My wife has many health issues, and has a handicapped placard.  When she parks in a handicapped stall and jumps out, it's usually not apparent how she 'qualifies'. Invisible illnesses are certainly things.   At least weekly she sees judgmental looks from people.  Maybe once every couple months, she runs into someone who feels it's a good idea to bring it to her attention.  Like it's their business.  Like she owes them an explanation.   She's got a thousand responses in her arsenal.  She'll have 1001 once I tell her about 'go phillips yourself'.    

Edited Monday at 05:04 PM by NeuroTypical

[Traveler]

I was called to a mission before there were name tags.  So also, for my grandfathers, great grandfathers and great great grandfathers.  My father was unable to be called to a mission because of WWII but he served later when there were name tags.

A few things I would make clear about being called of G-d:

First from the Articles of Faith

Quote

5 We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophesy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.

 

Second – I disagree slightly with my friend @mirkwood.  Just as the Plan of Salvation and Exaltation is for everyone so is serving a calling from G-d meant for everyone – including what it known as a mission.  The problem is not with a mission but with those that only wish to serve in a manner that they desire for themselves.   See Matthew 7:22-23

Quote

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

There is a varient reading of verse 23.  In stead of "Inever knew you"  it could be translated, "I never authorized you"

 

The Traveler

[zil2]

The irony is that after Elder Andersen's talk people are no doubt praising the ward who welcomed the pregnant teenager who returned to activity - "Oh, how loving and supportive!  That's just how I would be."  Sadly, they can't see the hypocrisy when they turn around and shame a young man who didn't go on a mission.  Here's my favorite scripture for these situations:

Quote

JS-H 1:28 During the space of time which intervened between the time I had the vision and the year eighteen hundred and twenty-three—having been forbidden to join any of the religious sects of the day, and being of very tender years, and persecuted by those who ought to have been my friends and to have treated me kindly, and if they supposed me to be deluded to have endeavored in a proper and affectionate manner to have reclaimed me—I was left to all kinds of temptations; and, mingling with all kinds of society, I frequently fell into many foolish errors, and displayed the weakness of youth, and the foibles of human nature; which, I am sorry to say, led me into divers temptations, offensive in the sight of God.

I'm not saying those who judge unrighteously will be held to account for the young man's "foolish" choices, but on the other hand, sometimes, sins are answered on the heads of parents, so...

[NeuroTypical]

13 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Just as the Plan of Salvation and Exaltation is for everyone so is serving a calling from G-d meant for everyone – including what it known as a mission.  The problem is not with a mission but with those that only wish to serve in a manner that they desire for themselves.

Traveler, cease this twisting of the words of our prophets and apostles.  Your statement is the dictionary definition of the philosophies of men, mingled with scripture.  When you take their "every worthy and able young man", and you turn it into "calling from G-d meant for everyone", you put words in their mouths, twist the truth in their message to your own.  Then you stand proudly upon this rameumptom of your own creation, looking down on those who you decide to think of as sinners, and pronounce their problem for them. 

Maybe I can suggest that you clarify, try again?

 

@Ironhold, you taking notes here?

 

Edited Monday at 05:31 PM by NeuroTypical

[Carborendum]

45 minutes ago, Traveler said:

There is a varient reading of verse 23.  In stead of "Inever knew you"  it could be translated, "I never authorized you"

I'd appreciate a source for that.  I've looked at the Greek.  I've looked at over 40 translations of that verse.  None of them say anything about "authorize" in place of "knew."

But the JST renders it as:  "Ye never knew me."

[HaggisShuu]

18 hours ago, Ironhold said:

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. 

I didn't serve a mission, I will admit I was unworthy at the time, and chose a marriage over a mission. Recent come follow me material has had me pondering. D&6 36 to me reads like, if you are a man, who is ordained to the priesthood, you must "go forth to preach the gospel" (most easily achieved through serving a mission.) 

Despite shirking a mission once, I still intend to serve 2 missions, a service mission when I've settled into a long term career and I'm not doing extra training/degrees. I will probably be able to do this in my late 30s. And an away from home senior mission when I retire. There is still time for me to fulfil this requirement and I intend to. 
 

As for judgement for not serving a mission, nobody would dare say anything directly to me now that I'm creating babies for our dying ward.

[LDSGator]

4 minutes ago, HaggisShuu said:

, nobody would dare say anything directly to me now that I'm creating babies for our dying ward.

No higher calling. 

[LDSGator]

4 hours ago, mirkwood said:

 

Actually it depends on why an early homecoming.

Sure. If you get caught smoking pot or having an “intimate moment” (keeping it PG) with your girlfriend, that’s a mistake, and sure, send them home early. No one argues that, but it‘s not what we are saying here. 
 

There’s no dishonor for someone going home because of depression, homesickness, or flat out incompatibility  

[HaggisShuu]

8 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Sure. If you get caught smoking pot or having an “intimate moment” (keeping it PG) with your girlfriend, that’s a mistake, and sure, send them home early. No one argues that, but it‘s not what we are saying here. 
 

There’s no dishonor for someone going home because of depression, homesickness, or flat out incompatibility  

I think the presiding bishops conference message of "compensating blessings" can be used in many situations, especially this one. 
 

I think that somebody who had a righteous desire to serve, left, and came home early under good faith circumstances, will not miss out on the blessings. 
 

A member from my ward watched his companion be stabbed in front of him while serving. Nobody blamed him for coming home early. 

[LDSGator]

11 minutes ago, HaggisShuu said:

Nobody blamed him for coming home early. 

I 100% guarantee you that there are people who thought he should have stayed on the mission, but I’m glad no one blamed him.  

[mirkwood]

33 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Sure. If you get caught smoking pot or having an “intimate moment” (keeping it PG) with your girlfriend, that’s a mistake, and sure, send them home early. No one argues that, but it‘s not what we are saying here. 

That was not delineated.

 

Quote

There’s no dishonor for someone going home because of depression, homesickness, or flat out incompatibility  

Correct.

[mirkwood]

2 hours ago, HaggisShuu said:

you must "go forth to preach the gospel"

 

This can be done in a great many ways outside of what we refer to as serving a mission.  I have helped reactivate several people over the years since returning from my mission.  I feel like they are bigger "successes" then what happened on my mission.

 

 

[mirkwood]

26 minutes ago, HaggisShuu said:

 

I think that somebody who had a righteous desire to serve, left, and came home early under good faith circumstances, will not miss out on the blessings. 
 

 

Absolutely correct.

[LDSGator]

7 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

That was not delineated.

Right, so I added it to make sure it was clear. 

[Ironhold]

11 hours ago, Carborendum said:

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.

I originally chose to stay back because it would have been a hardship; my maternal grandmother was diagnosed with Alzheimer's right before I graduated high school, and with both brothers out on their own my parents needed my help taking care of her. 

I was also dealing with undiagnosed mental and physical health issues at the time, and it was when I got the various diagnosis and started attempting to get my life together that I realized I wouldn't have been able to handle the rigid formal structure of a mission; I needed the flexibility that came with being an early internet "missionary" so that I could disengage or break free as needed. 

[Ironhold]

6 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Traveler, cease this twisting of the words of our prophets and apostles.  Your statement is the dictionary definition of the philosophies of men, mingled with scripture.  When you take their "every worthy and able young man", and you turn it into "calling from G-d meant for everyone", you put words in their mouths, twist the truth in their message to your own.  Then you stand proudly upon this rameumptom of your own creation, looking down on those who you decide to think of as sinners, and pronounce their problem for them. 

Maybe I can suggest that you clarify, try again?

 

@Ironhold, you taking notes here?

 

That's the kind of thing I've been seeing in the Bloggernacle since Conference: people going "See? It's mandatory to serve a mission, and you're a sinner if you don't!". 

These people then balk at any prospect of a person feeling called to serve in another fashion, having health issues that would make a formal mission an undue challenge, or even the idea that people can be missionaries in their daily lives. 

I still recall how the stake lost almost an entire generation of young men due to this drama the first time around, and worry for what will happen this time around.

[Traveler]

6 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I'd appreciate a source for that.  ...

A Rabbi. 

 

The Traveler