More ammo for Coach Bronco when he talks to recruits' Mormon mothers

[falafel]

I had an interesting discussion with my Bishop recently in which he postulated that the days of "every worthy young man should serve a mission" were over (or practically over). This related more towards raising the bar than college athletes, but if/when it becomes more acceptable in the Church to not go on a mission, more and more athletes will be staying home. Look, its already happening.

[cougjunkie]

I can't find the post on CB, but about a week ago, there was another discussion on players not going on missions and the poster politely informed everyone that guys may not go on a mission now, but most likely will serve right after college. 'They can serve until they are 27.' I am sure that is the most logical conclusion that the BYU players that don't go on missions while in school are just waiting to graduate so that they can go then.

He has a point look at Russell Tialavea and Ian Dulan. They both left very late almost at the end of their careers.

[Jacob]

Does anyone doubt that Jake is growing spiritually, and as a man, just as much as BYU's QB as he would as a full-time missionary?

I don't doubt it, but many do. I'd say we are in the minority among active Mormons.

[Goatnapper'96]

I had an interesting discussion with my Bishop recently in which he postulated that the days of "every worthy young man should serve a mission" were over (or practically over). This related more towards raising the bar than college athletes, but if/when it becomes more acceptable in the Church to not go on a mission, more and more athletes will be staying home. Look, its already happening.

I agree with this. I can see the trend, especially in basketball. It is becoming less and less of a cultural expectation. I still see the really hardcore kids that really into the faith serving missions, but whereas many of those marginally interested who would serve out of cultural expectations are going to serve less and less frequently. I think it will be a trend across the LDS culture and not just with athletes. I still expect Kyle Collinsworth to serve. I will be surprised if Demarcus Harrison goes on a mission.

[Goatnapper'96]

I don't doubt it, but many do. I'd say we are in the minority among active Mormons.

I think the experiences he would have as a missionary would help him significantly in life, far more than the ones he will have a the next Heisman Trophy Winner at the BYU. I think he is not taking advantage of a great opportunity. If I were his father, Bishop or YM President I would strongly recommend that he serve. I am not any of those three. My connection to the youngster is only as a fan of BYU football. Due to this relationship, that is so important to my personal mental state, it makes my nipples hard that he is willing to forego the best two years of his life to make the next two years the best two years of my life. That, my friends, is taking Christlike love and sacrifice to a whole 'nother level!

EVERYBODY RAISE YOUR HANDS AND SAY "YEAH!"

[Jacob]

I agree with this. I can see the trend, especially in basketball. It is becoming less and less of a cultural expectation. I still see the really hardcore kids that really into the faith serving missions, but whereas many of those marginally interested who would serve out of cultural expectations are going to serve less and less frequently. I think it will be a trend across the LDS culture and not just with athletes. I still expect Kyle Collinsworth to serve. I will be surprised if Demarcus Harrison goes on a mission.

One former BYU star (2000 ish) who didn't serve a mission commented to me that he was not encouraged to do so by his teammates. The most vocal RMs at that time didn't really enjoy their missions or were bitter. BBall teams are small groups, so the opinions of 1 or 2 can have a large effect. It depends on the group. But I think it has more to do with the family. These decisions are generally made before enrolling at the Y.

[Goatnapper'96]

One former BYU star (2000 ish) who didn't serve a mission commented to me that he was not encouraged to do so by his teammates. The most vocal RMs at that time didn't really enjoy their missions or were bitter. BBall teams are small groups, so the opinions of 1 or 2 can have a large effect. It depends on the group. But I think it has more to do with the family. These decisions are generally made before enrolling at the Y.

You piqued my curiosity. The only two LDS kids under Cleveland who did not serve missions were Jared Jensen and Mikeli Wesley. It seems to me that starting with Ladell Anderson through Cleveland more and more LDS kids served missions. Rose is benefitting from this new trend. At first I thought it was an anomaly but with each additional good player who chooses not to serve I am leaning towards a trend.

Back to your point I don't think Mark Bigelow or Travis Hansen thought his mission did his game any good. I still think those of many generation mormon stock who have siblings and parents and grandparents who served are likely to still go. But kids who are either converts themselves or are the children of converts where missionary service is yet to be institutionalized within the family are less likely to serve, especially if they are really good athletes. I doubt "How to Raise an All-American" is going to have the influence it would have 15 years ago. God bless the trend for it!

[Paperback Writer]

I had an interesting discussion with my Bishop recently in which he postulated that the days of "every worthy young man should serve a mission" were over (or practically over). This related more towards raising the bar than college athletes, but if/when it becomes more acceptable in the Church to not go on a mission, more and more athletes will be staying home. Look, its already happening.

This is probably something for another thread but I agree with this postulation. However, the message these YM will be hearing in priesthood and YM is to prepare to serve a full-time mission at 19. In other words, prepare to jump over the bar.

I wonder if it will ever become "more acceptable" in Mormon culture to not serve a full-time mission. I don't think this is desirable but it will be difficult to change Mormon culture in regards to missionary service. Many YW are taught by parents that RM status is a must for a future husband. In my area, I don't know of a Bishopric member or stake presidency member who has not served a mission. It seems the only valid excuse for not serving a mission is to be a convert during college years or older or after they were married. I look at my own family and LDS acquaintances and most who did not serve missions are no longer active. And this make me distressed. Not that these men didn't serve missions but that they may have felt excluded from the LDS church or Mormon culture for not having done so.

It's something I wish would change in Mormon culture and perhaps it is changing but at a slow rate, in my view. If it's already happenning - I don't see it. I see YM who don't want to serve a mission no longer going to church.

[LA Ute]

I don't doubt it, but many do. I'd say we are in the minority among active Mormons.

I was actually posting tongue-in-cheek. I am very big on missions and think that generally they are an irreplaceable growth experience. Notice I said "generally."

[Jacob]

T I look at my own family and LDS acquaintances and most who did not serve missions are no longer active. And this make me distressed. Not that these men didn't serve missions but that they may have felt excluded from the LDS church or Mormon culture for not having done so.

I look at my own family and acquaintances and don't necessarily see the same pattern. The people I see who are going inactive later are those that served missions. That's just anecdotal. But in my own family, the strength of a testimony, the trend toward or away from activity does not seem correlated to mission service.

[RC Vikings]

How much pressure will Heaps get to serve a mission?

[byu71]

How much pressure will Heaps get to serve a mission?

Depends on the gal he falls for. If she will only marry an RM, then he will be gone.

On the other hand, if she see's a trophy husband in her future instead of a High Priest group leader, he probably won't be gone.

[LA Ute]

Depends on the gal he falls for. If she will only marry an RM, then he will be gone.

On the other hand, if she see's a trophy husband in her future instead of a High Priest group leader, he probably won't be gone.

Your avatar may cause my eyes to bleed before very long.

[statman]

This is probably something for another thread but I agree with this postulation. However, the message these YM will be hearing in priesthood and YM is to prepare to serve a full-time mission at 19. In other words, prepare to jump over the bar.

I wonder if it will ever become "more acceptable" in Mormon culture to not serve a full-time mission. I don't think this is desirable but it will be difficult to change Mormon culture in regards to missionary service. Many YW are taught by parents that RM status is a must for a future husband. In my area, I don't know of a Bishopric member or stake presidency member who has not served a mission. It seems the only valid excuse for not serving a mission is to be a convert during college years or older or after they were married. I look at my own family and LDS acquaintances and most who did not serve missions are no longer active. And this make me distressed. Not that these men didn't serve missions but that they may have felt excluded from the LDS church or Mormon culture for not having done so.

It's something I wish would change in Mormon culture and perhaps it is changing but at a slow rate, in my view. If it's already happenning - I don't see it. I see YM who don't want to serve a mission no longer going to church.

I would guess that you've got your drivers mixed-up. It's not that they no longer attend because they didn't serve a mission. It's that they weren't 'fully invested' and chose not to serve a mission, and the lack of 'investment' also caused them to stop attending church.

Raising the bar, requires a higher level of 'investment.' Those without it no longer serve. And if there's any doubt at all - virtually all of those who can't qualify for a 'raised bar' mission but want to serve, CAN qualify for a service mission. And yet not that many choose this route. That right there is your proof. Those who are ineligible for a 'raised bar' mission who also choose not to serve through an alternate route, were never really very serious in serving anyway.

A few weeks ago, I asked my SP about what he thought the impacts of "raising the bar" have been. He said that he's had to tell a few kids that they weren't eligible to serve - kids who likely would have been allowed to serve prior to the change. When I asked what portion decided on a service mission instead, he said that none of them had.

Yes, my anecdote is from one stake that has demographics that aren't very conducive to sending out missionaries (wait for 6 or 7 years and there will be a flood of them). But by and large, I get the feeling that very, very few of those who are excluded from proselyting missions choose another form of service...

[byu71]

Your avatar may cause my eyes to bleed before very long.

they just feel like they will. Trust me, after years of looking in the mirror, they won't.