A post on CB regarding Teo

[byu71]

and his decision after this year to serve a mission. What Teo said prompted a poster to respond, but hasn't the Man up above already made his decision in "every worthy young man should serve a mission".

I was tempted to start something over there, but I am the kindler, gentler BYU71 now days.

I am curious though on this board because I don't think the question or answers will cause such an uproar, do you believe a young man who chooses not to serve has not heeded the words of the prophet and church or do you feel he has told the man up above himself no.

[The Wankster]

Your post makes no sense, is he serving a mission after this year, or is he not serving at all?

Sure every worthy young LDS male should be working towards serving a mission, if when they turn 19 they decide it's not really something they wish to do, that is their decision, no one elses to make.

I just love all the back seat members who make decisions to what their neighbors should be doing to get back to heaven.

[Jarid in Cedar]

I just love all the back seat members who make decisions to what their neighbors should be doing to get back to heaven.

They are just looking out for what best for you. People should be happy they care enough to help guide you to the celestial kingdom.

[KillerDog]

I think a mission is a poorly designed rite of passage but it is all the rite of passage we Mormons have. As a result, I think the prophet was clearly trying to drive up the number of missionaries when he made the "every young man" statement and therefore it was a commandment. Since the "raising of the bar" I think the status of the aforementioned statement can be called into doubt. If serving a mission doesn't include some youngsters based on weight etc., then it can't be a commandment. Imagine a commandment that you couldn't follow if you had previously sinned and repented. For example what if you were precluded from temple sealing if you had fornicated as a youth and no repentance would remedy the situation. I propose that in such a case, (1) the atonement isn't what we understand it to be, (2) the prophet is fallen, or (3) the "commandment" isn't a commandment.

I'm sure that was rambling and didn't make sense but I'm going to submit it anyway because I don't want to proof read or re-write.

[JohnnyLingo]

I think a mission is a poorly designed rite of passage but it is all the rite of passage we Mormons have. As a result, I think the prophet was clearly trying to drive up the number of missionaries when he made the "every young man" statement and therefore it was a commandment. Since the "raising of the bar" I think the status of the aforementioned statement can be called into doubt. If serving a mission doesn't include some youngsters based on weight etc., then it can't be a commandment. Imagine a commandment that you couldn't follow if you had previously sinned and repented. For example what if you were precluded from temple sealing if you had fornicated as a youth and no repentance would remedy the situation. I propose that in such a case, (1) the atonement isn't what we understand it to be, (2) the prophet is fallen, or (3) the "commandment" isn't a commandment.

I'm sure that was rambling and didn't make sense but I'm going to submit it anyway because I don't want to proof read or re-write.

I know everyone here likes the "kid had sex once now can't serve" example, but I like to think the "raising the bar" idea is more to prevent the calling of missionaries who would be a detriment to the work. If a kid simply cannot handle the rigors of a mission life, for any reason, they shouldn't go out.

I agree that the idea of one instance of sinning precluding a young man from serving if he has truly repented to be wrong, but that's not all the program is.

[Pheidippides]

I know everyone here likes the "kid had sex once now can't serve" example, but I like to think the "raising the bar" idea is more to prevent the calling of missionaries who would be a detriment to the work. If a kid simply cannot handle the rigors of a mission life, for any reason, they shouldn't go out.

I agree that the idea of one instance of sinning precluding a young man from serving if he has truly repented to be wrong, but that's not all the program is.

If that's what the program is supposed to be, it is a massive failure.

[Art Vandelay]

I think a mission is a poorly designed rite of passage but it is all the rite of passage we Mormons have. As a result, I think the prophet was clearly trying to drive up the number of missionaries when he made the "every young man" statement and therefore it was a commandment. Since the "raising of the bar" I think the status of the aforementioned statement can be called into doubt. If serving a mission doesn't include some youngsters based on weight etc., then it can't be a commandment. Imagine a commandment that you couldn't follow if you had previously sinned and repented. For example what if you were precluded from temple sealing if you had fornicated as a youth and no repentance would remedy the situation. I propose that in such a case, (1) the atonement isn't what we understand it to be, (2) the prophet is fallen, or (3) the "commandment" isn't a commandment.

I'm sure that was rambling and didn't make sense but I'm going to submit it anyway because I don't want to proof read or re-write.

In my experience it tends not to be the kid who was a little too amorous with his girlfriend and decided to change his ways months or years before serving. It is the kid who hit everything wearing with a skirt for 2 years then decides the week before he wants to send in his papers to change his ways. Even in those instances (at least in my stake) it isn't a "you can't serve" situation, but more of a lets work on this for the next 6 months or year before sending you off to preach and teach and do as missionaries do.

I have dealt with 2 young men where a local service mission was better suited to their emotional needs. It allowed them the blessings of missionary service yet still the support of family, physicians and a familiar environment.

[woot]

I know everyone here likes the "kid had sex once now can't serve" example, but I like to think the "raising the bar" idea is more to prevent the calling of missionaries who would be a detriment to the work. If a kid simply cannot handle the rigors of a mission life, for any reason, they shouldn't go out.

I agree that the idea of one instance of sinning precluding a young man from serving if he has truly repented to be wrong, but that's not all the program is.

An extremely large percentage of folks in my mission were total wastes of space, but I can't imagine how the church thinks it'll be able to weed those people out by putting restrictions on fat ones and those who've gotten laid. A couple of the best missionaries I met were former drug dealers who had no qualms about sex, and another of the best was obese. Similarly, the biggest piles of shit were skinny virgins who couldn't possibly be weeded out through such simpleminded restrictions.

Just sayin'.

[LA Ute]

and his decision after this year to serve a mission. What Teo said prompted a poster to respond, but hasn't the Man up above already made his decision in "every worthy young man should serve a mission".

I was tempted to start something over there, but I am the kindler, gentler BYU71 now days.

I am curious though on this board because I don't think the question or answers will cause such an uproar, do you believe a young man who chooses not to serve has not heeded the words of the prophet and church or do you feel he has told the man up above himself no.

I think we are very hard on 18-19 year-old men in our church. They are really just boy/men trying to meet very high standards in difficult times. Working with the YM over the last 12 years or so has really impressed on me how large the mission "rite of passage" looms in their lives and what utter failures they feel like if they can't or don't serve - whatever the reason. I think it's a problem in the Church but I don't know what to do about it.

[Pheidippides]

I think we are very hard on 18-19 year-old men in our church. They are really just boy/men trying to meet very high standards in difficult times. Working with the YM over the last 12 years or so has really impressed on me how large the mission "rite of passage" looms in their lives and what utter failures they feel like if they can't or don't serve - whatever the reason. I think it's a problem in the Church but I don't know what to do about it.

I agree with this.

[Donuthole]

In my experience it tends not to be the kid who was a little too amorous with his girlfriend and decided to change his ways months or years before serving. It is the kid who hit everything wearing with a skirt for 2 years then decides the week before he wants to send in his papers to change his ways. Even in those instances (at least in my stake) it isn't a "you can't serve" situation, but more of a lets work on this for the next 6 months or year before sending you off to preach and teach and do as missionaries do.

By your example, wouldn't it be called "lowering the bar?" After all, the "rules" prior to the changes were that you couldn't submit your papers for a year after having sex.

[Rosebud]

I think we are very hard on 18-19 year-old men in our church. They are really just boy/men trying to meet very high standards in difficult times. Working with the YM over the last 12 years or so has really impressed on me how large the mission "rite of passage" looms in their lives and what utter failures they feel like if they can't or don't serve - whatever the reason. I think it's a problem in the Church but I don't know what to do about it.

I have to admit that this is one of my biggest concerns. I feel like my son (older primary age) is taught at church that serving a mission is critical to his salvation, his standing with God, his future in the church, etc. At home we talk about pros and cons, let him know that God will love him either way and that the decision will ultimately be his... but I dislike the fact that he is repetitively indoctrinated into the mission-path by others.

Maybe I could be happy about the rite-of-passage idea if I trusted that mission presidents really understand kids and have their best interests in mind. As this is only sometimes the case, it also concerning to me that parents are indoctrinated into believing that it is normal to have almost no contact with a child for two years. We often hear mothers who have sons leaving talk about how their nonmember friends can't understand how they'd be willing to trust their child to a stranger for so long. The mothers generally then cry and talk about how they are dealing with the sacrifice. I just can't help but think that maybe our nonmember friends are right. Having complete trust and zero contact does sound a little crazy. We're used to it because it's our own Mormon crazy... but that doesn't make it any healthier.

[MarkGrace]

I have to admit that this is one of my biggest concerns. I feel like my son (older primary age) is taught at church that serving a mission is critical to his salvation, his standing with God, his future in the church, etc. At home we talk about pros and cons, let him know that God will love him either way and that the decision will ultimately be his... but I dislike the fact that he is repetitively indoctrinated into the mission-path by others.

This was more or less the approach my parents took, and I appreciated it. I never had the intention of serving a mission, and thankfully my parents never put pressure on me to do so. When I did go, it was because I wanted to and was ready.

Despite the church's urging that every young man serve a mission, I don't think a mission is for everyone. Personally I wish everyone involved in the church would scale back the pressure put on young men. Those who have the desire should go, and those who don't should be able to stay home without stigma -- it would make missionary work a hell of a lot better and more effective.

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

As someone who should not have gone on a mission when I turned 19, I think the "every young man" line is not great. I get why it is the church mantra, and I think that for many/most it is fine to go if not fully converted or even knowing what the BoM is about, or totally immature. But I was a punk and should not have gone for a year or two, maybe at all. However that was unacceptable to my ward and neighborhood. I would have become a pariah.

[The Wankster]

I have to admit that this is one of my biggest concerns. I feel like my son (older primary age) is taught at church that serving a mission is critical to his salvation, his standing with God, his future in the church, etc. At home we talk about pros and cons, let him know that God will love him either way and that the decision will ultimately be his... but I dislike the fact that he is repetitively indoctrinated into the mission-path by others.

Maybe I could be happy about the rite-of-passage idea if I trusted that mission presidents really understand kids and have their best interests in mind. As this is only sometimes the case, it also concerning to me that parents are indoctrinated into believing that it is normal to have almost no contact with a child for two years. We often hear mothers who have sons leaving talk about how their nonmember friends can't understand how they'd be willing to trust their child to a stranger for so long. The mothers generally then cry and talk about how they are dealing with the sacrifice. I just can't help but think that maybe our nonmember friends are right. Having complete trust and zero contact does sound a little crazy. We're used to it because it's our own Mormon crazy... but that doesn't make it any healthier.

You seem like a nice person, but WOW, so much suspicion toward your fellow people. Sounds like it must be difficult to really get in tight with others around you, or make life long friends with all of your suspicions of every individual being out to harm you or yours in some way?

Gotta say I personally wouldn't do very well under your roof, or rules, but to each there own.