Serving Without A Name Tag?

[Carborendum]

59 minutes ago, Traveler said:

A Rabbi. 

 

The Traveler

A Rabbi gave an interpretation of a New Testament scripture?

Well, then... obviously.

[Traveler]

13 hours ago, Carborendum said:

A Rabbi gave an interpretation of a New Testament scripture?

Well, then... obviously.

You are making assumptions that perhaps are inaccurate.  Jesus was a Jew.  Rabbis are also Jews that are expert in understanding Jewish traditions.   Perhaps I should initiate a thread titled “Textual Criticism”.  

Perhaps one of the greatest failures in communications is assuming what seems obvious and missing what is the intent.  For example, a simple English word of tree, may seem to have obvious extent of meaning but in reality, the intent, especially in certain forms like poetic or other literature (including humor), could be subjective and lost to a literal reader or listener.

This little post has some literal content but there is also much that is subjective that will allow you a great deal of latitude depending on what you want to take from it.

 

The Traveler

[HaggisShuu]

17 hours ago, Ironhold said:

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.

We have a few RMs in my ward who make a big song and dance about how everyone should serve a mission in priesthood and Sunday school. 
 

In my opinion these people are akin to the hypocrites who pray on the street corners who Jesus bashed in the sermon on the mount. 
 

If you are concerned about your stake devolving into what you describe, then that cruelty needs to be challenged and rebuked. According to D&C 20, this is also a priesthood duty:

Quote

54 And see that there is no iniquity in the church, neither hardness with each other, neither lying, backbiting⁠, nor evil speaking⁠;

 

[NeuroTypical]

1 hour ago, HaggisShuu said:

We have a few RMs in my ward who make a big song and dance about how everyone should serve a mission in priesthood and Sunday school. 

It's the easiest thing in the world to just say "Just about everyone should serve a mission", and be back on the right side of things, aligned with our prophets.  But people don't know enough about their fellow saints to be able to love them as God commanded.

[LDSGator]

54 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

people don't know enough about their fellow saints

That was surprising to me when I joined. You’d hear people say “we’re family! I love you forever!” then they stop talking to one another after wards get dissolved or someone moves. It would be more honest if those people said “We’re family, as long as you stay in this ward, agree with me fully,  and I see you weekly.”   
 

Of course, this hardly applies to everyone but it’s not just me who says stuff like this happens. 

Edited Tuesday at 08:19 PM by LDSGator

[JohnsonJones]

On 4/27/2025 at 5:23 PM, 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. 

While not all are able to serve a mission, missions are much more open and available for those who wish to serve today.

Back in your time it was probably proselyting missions that were being pushed.

This is not the type of mission that is well suited for every type of individual.

These days, service missions are also a type of mission that one can serve and still get the "name tag" to wear proudly...if one wants to put it that way.

Service missions can be tailored in various ways to enable the individual, no matter the disability, to be able to serve the Lord honorably.

Due to these types of changes, almost anyone who wants or wishes to serve a mission and is worthy, can serve a mission in the capacity that they are able to do so.

A Mission is a choice, and whether one serves a mission or not will not reflect on whether they go to the Celestial Kingdom or not.  It does not determine what type of member they turn out to be in later years, or how faithful they will be to the gospel or the church after the missionary age.

There are many who serve missions who fall away from the church, and many who do not serve missions who are faithful and strong members.

---------------------------------------------------------------

However, it will not stop people from using it as a measure to weigh one's background.  A mission can be a helpful predictor of what an individual was or is in their behaviour and attitudes. 

I have a grand daughter who was dating a young man.  I found out that he did not go on a mission and I questioned her about it.  She was very hesitant to tell me anything about him.  I told her that from what I could see, very few reasons would disallow a young man from serving in his condition.  It made me suspect about what type of quality of young man he was.

Many times when one chose not to serve a mission it indicated that they were either...

Inactive

Had some sort of medical difficulty or problem

Lacked a testimony

Other problems which were serious, but didn't fall in the above

Or...and through no fault of their own, simply could not acquire the funds to serve.

Turns out that my feelings were correct.  He didn't serve a mission because he got a girl pregnant and then got married to her.  Later, when she had a major health difficulty, he divorced her.  My grand daughter spent a good two years wasting her time with this fellow.  At the time he just wasn't a committed individual.  I wish she would have simply dumped him and moved on to better individuals in the dating field. 

This is not a condemnation of those that did not serve missions, but many members have seen the effects from some of those that did not serve missions.  Having been burned by these types of individuals at times, they feel it better to avoid being burned again, even if it is only an illusion of fire rather than actually being a fire.

It isn't that those who did not serve missions are bad people, but there are those among them who are and have done enough to spread that stigma about it. 

It's like that idea where you may see a bunch of people, and most of them are good, but sometimes there is that one individual that is bad that sours everyone to the rest of them. 

Today, with how much easier it is for young men to serve missions, questions arise even more when a young man chooses not to.

Not serving a mission has become to vogue inside the church.  I have over 20 grandchildren.  I've only had one grandson that has served a mission thus far.  One.  It's not that the others cannot serve missions, they chose not to. 

----------------------------------------------------------

I can understand the frustrations about not serving a mission.  When others talk about their mission, I sometimes comment that I served several hundred missions (Military missions).  My humor...is a singular wit at times.  However, it places mee me alongside others who are not in that same LDS missionary field of experiences in the judgement of those I say this too. 

That said, I also feel that a young man who is worthy and able (and being able has never been easier) should serve a mission.  Choosing not to do so (as many of my grandchildren have chosen not to) is a reflection of what they feel is important and their choices in life that will probably reverberate and effect them throughout the rest of their lives. 

 

[Ironhold]

3 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I can understand the frustrations about not serving a mission.  When others talk about their mission, I sometimes comment that I served several hundred missions (Military missions).  My humor...is a singular wit at times.  However, it places mee me alongside others who are not in that same LDS missionary field of experiences in the judgement of those I say this too. 

That said, I also feel that a young man who is worthy and able (and being able has never been easier) should serve a mission.  Choosing not to do so (as many of my grandchildren have chosen not to) is a reflection of what they feel is important and their choices in life that will probably reverberate and effect them throughout the rest of their lives. 

 

The stake supports a major US military base. 

Due in part to its influence, a number of the young men from my generation felt called to serve *in the military*, while others saw the military as a stepping stone towards bigger and better things in life (such as how the G.I. Bill could help them pay for college). 

However, the whole "All young men must serve missions, and all young women must regard all young men who didn't serve as unfit for marriage" mantra put these young men in a difficult spot. This is part of why so many of them either left the area or quit being active. 

But yeah, things were *bad* here, to the point that we actually once had a stake speaker go on a tangent about how as far as he was concerned anyone who didn't serve a mission was "of no worth" to the church... and he very much meant a witnessing mission. 

Things like this are why I am trying to caution people that they need to take the rhetoric down a notch and recognize that everyone is different and the whole "best two years" bit might not be the best option for them to serve. 

Edit - 

If it tells you anything about what I personally went through?

My birthday is in November. 

One day, a member of the bishopric asked those of us who were priests where we expected to be on our 19th birthdays. 

Well, I figured that since I was going to graduate in May, I wasn't exactly going to be sitting around for several months twiddling my thumbs. Logically, I could squeeze in a semester or two of college and get that in place by the time my 19th birthday rolled around. *Then* I could put in my paperwork if going was still an option, as things were getting a bit hairy with my maternal grandmother and my parents were needing more effort on my part to help take care of her. 

So, I said "finishing my first semester of college".

He matter-of-factly, zero emotion whatsoever, shot back with "Why are you putting the world before God?". It turns out that he was expecting all of us to automatically state that we would be spending our 19th birthday putting in our paperwork, and had forgotten that I was born late enough in the year for it to be a bit of a complication. 

It took him an entire week to remember this, at which point he fired off a quick apology the next time he saw me in church. 

That's how unthinking and knee-jerk everything was, that they just expected all of us to have our paperwork ready to go, no exceptions. 

Edited 18 hours ago by Ironhold

[Carborendum]

On 4/29/2025 at 10:52 AM, Traveler said:

You are making assumptions that perhaps are inaccurate.

That just as easily applies to you.  My problem was your use of the word "translation."  But I may have been hasty in my reaction.  So, I apologize.

I'm not saying that the meaning you provided (authorized) is completely absent in the statement.  I'm saying that "authorized" is a corollary, not the primary meaning.

If I never knew you, how could I have authorized you?  Likewise, if you never really knew me, how could you say you were truly serving my interests?

Edited 18 hours ago by Carborendum

[LDSGator]

1 hour ago, Ironhold said:

as far as he was concerned anyone who didn't serve a mission was "of no worth" to the church...

And as far as I’m concerned, his statement is of no worth. So don’t worry about it. 

[LDSGator]

@Ironhold-just to double down, tell that guy about Russell M. Nelson, Dallin H. Oaks, Henry B. Eyring, and Dieter F. Uchtdorf. I guess they are worthless to the church too because none of them served missions. 

[NeuroTypical]

It can be difficult to raise your arm and sustain error-prone folks, especially when they do something that ticks us off.  It helps me to remember that putting actual sustaining into action, can sometimes involve doing what I can to help someone be less error-prone or tickey-offey.  Sometimes there's a way I can help with that, sometimes not.

Edited 16 hours ago by NeuroTypical

[Just_A_Guy]

2 hours ago, Ironhold said:

The stake supports a major US military base. 

Due in part to its influence, a number of the young men from my generation felt called to serve *in the military*, while others saw the military as a stepping stone towards bigger and better things in life (such as how the G.I. Bill could help them pay for college). 

However, the whole "All young men must serve missions, and all young women must regard all young men who didn't serve as unfit for marriage" mantra put these young men in a difficult spot. This is part of why so many of them either left the area or quit being active. 

But yeah, things were *bad* here, to the point that we actually once had a stake speaker go on a tangent about how as far as he was concerned anyone who didn't serve a mission was "of no worth" to the church... and he very much meant a witnessing mission. 

Things like this are why I am trying to caution people that they need to take the rhetoric down a notch and recognize that everyone is different and the whole "best two years" bit might not be the best option for them to serve. 

Edit - 

If it tells you anything about what I personally went through?

My birthday is in November. 

One day, a member of the bishopric asked those of us who were priests where we expected to be on our 19th birthdays. 

Well, I figured that since I was going to graduate in May, I wasn't exactly going to be sitting around for several months twiddling my thumbs. Logically, I could squeeze in a semester or two of college and get that in place by the time my 19th birthday rolled around. *Then* I could put in my paperwork if going was still an option, as things were getting a bit hairy with my maternal grandmother and my parents were needing more effort on my part to help take care of her. 

So, I said "finishing my first semester of college".

He matter-of-factly, zero emotion whatsoever, shot back with "Why are you putting the world before God?". It turns out that he was expecting all of us to automatically state that we would be spending our 19th birthday putting in our paperwork, and had forgotten that I was born late enough in the year for it to be a bit of a complication. 

It took him an entire week to remember this, at which point he fired off a quick apology the next time he saw me in church. 

That's how unthinking and knee-jerk everything was, that they just expected all of us to have our paperwork ready to go, no exceptions. 

The knee-jerkiness can (and in my experience, often does) go both ways.

Take all these LDS military veterans who you seem to suggest were driven out of the Church because active LDS women wouldn’t marry them.  I’ll bet those young men had no problems imposing a number of criteria on their would-be wives that had nothing to do with those women’s current righteousness temple-worthiness.  Maybe they wanted wives who had a high school diploma; or who didn’t already have kids from a prior relationship; or had certain career plans; or who were virgins.  And they probably considered women who didn’t meet those criteria as being “unfit for marriage”.

Women, like men, have a right to set standards for their future spouses.  It’s interesting to me that nearly twenty years ago LDS young men were warned that the bar for missionary service was being raised—and now, changing Church demographics are showing that due to a surplus of men and shortage of women, the bar for LDS would-be husbands is also being raised.  LDS young men would be well-served to figure out early in life that LDS women do not owe them a dadgummed thing; and if an LDS man is going to precondition his continuing Church membership on the sexual availability of an LDS woman—my response to him would be “brother, I love you, but the door is right over there”.

Church demographics are changing.  We have a surplus of men now; and the days when LDS suitors can browbeat LDS women into lowering their standards through the threat of lifelong spinsterhood are over.

Edited 16 hours ago by Just_A_Guy

[LDSGator]

45 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

LDS young men would be well-served to figure out early in life that LDS women do not owe them a dadgummed thing;

Couldn’t agree more. 

And guess what? LDS men don’t women a thing either. Now, with the church becoming so mainstream LDS men/women can find dates and spouses outside the church very easily. 

 

45 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

brother, I love you, but the door is right over there”.

In this case, sure. I’m with you. But showing someone the door is a very dangerous strategy. For all you know they’ll call your bluff and might thrive. I saw that happen with a returned missionary who was told she wasn’t welcome in the church due to her politics. She said “Okay”-and she’s doing so well that other RM’s saw her and had issues with their own faith. Granted, it’s a small case and just my personal experiences.  
 

It’s like asking your boss to fire you or your girlfriend to leave you. Once she’s packing her bags and once you are cleaning out your desk you’ll begin to think “Gee, maybe I should have handled that differently.” 

Edited 15 hours ago by LDSGator

[Just_A_Guy]

37 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

[1]Couldn’t agree more. 

And guess what? LDS men don’t women a thing either. Now, with the church becoming so mainstream LDS men/women can find dates and spouses outside the church very easily. 

 

[2]In this case, sure. I’m with you. But showing someone the door is a very dangerous strategy. For all you know they’ll call your bluff and might thrive. I saw that happen with a returned missionary who was told she wasn’t welcome in the church due to her politics. She said “Okay”-and she’s doing so well that other RM’s saw her and had issues with their own faith. Granted, it’s a small case and just my personal experiences.  
 

It’s like asking your boss to fire you or your girlfriend to leave you. Once she’s packing her bags and once you are cleaning out your desk you’ll begin to think “Gee, maybe I should have handled that differently.” 

1.  Sure.  It’s just a question of how seriously they take the idea of temple covenants.

2.  I [would like to] think that most mature, reasonably-well-adjusted LDS folks can reconcile the ideas that a) a lot of what passes for “happiness” outside of LDS circles, actually isn’t; b) people outside the LDS Church can nevertheless be genuinely pretty happy folks; and c) LDS covenants and precepts, properly lived and applied, nevertheless do offer a superior opportunity for sustainable stability and health and happiness to what is generally available outside of the Church.

And while statements that “there’s no place for x here” is dangerously and probably overused as a general principle—I nevertheless feel reasonably comfortable in saying that there is no place for a sense of entitlement to a sexual relationship, in the LDS Church.

Edited 15 hours ago by Just_A_Guy

[LDSGator]

4 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

1.  Sure.  It’s just a question of how seriously they take the idea of temple covenants.

2.  I [would like to] think that most reasonably-adjusted LDS folks can reconcile the ideas that a) people outside the LDS Church can be genuinely pretty happy folks; b) a lot of what passes for “happiness” outside of LDS circles, actually isn’t; and c) LDS covenants and precepts, properly lived and applied, do offer a superior opportunity for sustainable stability and health and happiness to what is generally available outside of the Church.

Check your FB inbox for a response. 

[LDSGator]

14 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I nevertheless feel reasonably comfortable in saying that there is no place for a sense of entitlement to a sexual relationship, in the LDS Church.

Agree there 100%. 

[estradling75]

4 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Women, like men, have a right to set standards for their future spouses. 

Indeed they do...  It's been my experience that Women are no more to be mindless sheeple blindly following prophetic council then Men are...

But it has also been my experience that Women have a greater tendency to deflect bad News they give then Men do.  For this case imagine a young Woman who has no interest in the Young Man perusing her.  Instead of telling the young man "You do not have a chance in Hell with me." and deal with the potentially very violent reaction.  (Totally understandable in my opinion) She will punt to whatever excuse she can that passes the blame. "Oh you didn't serve a mission...  I can't possibly marry someone that didn't go." Thus redirecting the rejection anger of the Young Man from her to the Church.  If it happens enough then the Young Man blames the church for his relationship failures.

Edited 12 hours ago by estradling75

[Traveler]

12 hours ago, Carborendum said:

That just as easily applies to you.  My problem was your use of the word "translation."  But I may have been hasty in my reaction.  So, I apologize.

I'm not saying that the meaning you provided (authorized) is completely absent in the statement.  I'm saying that "authorized" is a corollary, not the primary meaning.

If I never knew you, how could I have authorized you?  Likewise, if you never really knew me, how could you say you were truly serving my interests?

My problem with the “I never knew you” version of anything associated with the knowledge of Christ - is how could he not know someone with his powers of perception and also the fact he was willing to die for them.  This also implies that at the judgement day, Jesus would declare that he did not know them and still be able to judge them.

I agree that the Joseph Smith version does seem to come closer but if you look at the entire context of someone using someone’s name (the equivalent of exercising power of attorney to perform actions) the declaration that the person was never authorized to use the name of Christ makes a lot of sense to me and gives meaning more in line with what I would expect of the meaning.  In addition, since the King James Version is a Protestant version of scripture – I would expect the protestant scholars to deliberately avoid the term “authorize”, especially in light of the apologetics between the Catholics and Protestants.   At the same time I can see why a Rabbi would be happy with that alternate reading.

 

The Traveler