Jump to content
Darren10

Does Missionary Service Merit Military Deferments?

Recommended Posts

In an outstanding rebuttal to Seve Bannon's criticizing Mitt Romney for having served a mission in France for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints while others "were dying in rice patties" in Vietnam, the atheist-conservative-libertarian known online as Allahpundit writes the following:

Quote

At least Romney was off serving his faith. Does this party not support that now? I speculated last night that many populists don’t actually care about abortion except to the extent the issue can be used to keep right-wing skeptics of populism on the team. Bannon’s sneering contempt for Romney here makes me wonder how important faith is too.

Utah GOPers slam Bannon for claiming Romney hid behind his religion to avoid serving in Vietnam

How important should faith be in our society? In our politics? Is serving a full time mission for a church worthy of military deferments?

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Darren10 said:

In an outstanding rebuttal to Seve Bannon's criticizing Mitt Romney for having served a mission in France for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints while others "were dying in rice patties" in Vietnam, the atheist-conservative-libertarian known online as Allahpundit writes the following:

Utah GOPers slam Bannon for claiming Romney hid behind his religion to avoid serving in Vietnam

How important should faith be in our society? In our politics? Is serving a full time mission for a church worthy of military deferments?

That really has not been an issue for about half a century. But if educational efforts can Merit a deferment, I would think unpaid charitable service like missionary work may also qualify. I suppose it depends on the severity of need.

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Darren10 said:

In an outstanding rebuttal to Seve Bannon's criticizing Mitt Romney for having served a mission in France for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints while others "were dying in rice patties" in Vietnam, the atheist-conservative-libertarian known online as Allahpundit writes the following:

Utah GOPers slam Bannon for claiming Romney hid behind his religion to avoid serving in Vietnam

How important should faith be in our society? In our politics? Is serving a full time mission for a church worthy of military deferments?

The LDS Church and the U.S. Govt had a formal agreement during the VIetnam War:  It limited the number of missionaries which could be called, but allowed the first call (LDS mission call or Selective Service call up) to be operative.  Many Mormons went to the rice paddies of Vietnam, and some got killed.  Where was Donald Trump at that time?  Getting all sorts of phony deferments.  Bannon himself was a military officer.  However, now he is backing a serial child molester for the Senate in Alabama.

Edited by Robert F. Smith

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The LDS Church and the U.S. Govt had a formal agreement during the VIetnam War:  It limited the number of missionaries which could be called, but allowed the first call (LDS mission call or Selective Service call up) to be operative.  Many Mormons went to the rice paddies of Vietnam, and some got killed.  Where was Donald Trump at thhat time?  Getting all sorts of phony deferments.  Bannon himself was a military officer.  However, now he is backing a serial child molester for the Senate in Alabama.

was Bannon able to go to Vietnam? he was 18 in 1971. 

Share this post


Link to post

And 1972 was the last year of draft for that war as I recall.

Share this post


Link to post

Bannon's one of the worst things about politics. The level of hypocrisy and lack of care for ethics is so high it boggles the mind.

I oppose the draft but it seems weird to complain about following the rules. According to the NYTs Romney was pretty pro-Viet Nam War before his mission but he and his father changed their views by the time he got home. Which I can understand. Being willing to go but the be saddled with a pretty incompetent leadership is tough. Although from the histories I've read things had improved during Nixon's period which was then undermined when congress cut funding to the South Vietnamese government. But man, what a pointless war in so many ways.

Share this post


Link to post
31 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The LDS Church and the U.S. Govt had a formal agreement during the VIetnam War:  It limited the number of missionaries which could be called, but allowed the first call (LDS mission call or Selective Service call up) to be operative.  Many Mormons went to the rice paddies of Vietnam, and some got killed.  Where was Donald Trump at thhat time?  Getting all sorts of phony deferments.  Bannon himself was a military officer.  However, now he is backing a serial child molester for the Senate in Alabama.

Bannon's sick, no doubt. The article has a great take on populism and offers a very probable reason Bannon attacked Romney and not Trump.

Great points on the LDS Church / government agreement. I know there are liaisons the Church has for the military. I did not know about the agreement though so thank you for sharing.

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Bannon's one of the worst things about politics. The level of hypocrisy and lack of care for ethics is so high it boggles the mind.

Agreed on both accounts! Allahpundit wrote:

Quote

The essence of populism is identifying the powerful villains who’ve conspired to stop you from getting ahead and Romney, to borrow a favorite Trump phrase, is straight out of central casting. As Mike Huckabee once said, Mitt looks like the guy who laid you off whereas Huck looks like the guy you work with. Romney’s a perfect hate object for Bannon’s demographic and populism requires an endless supply of hate objects. It’s why it’s so easy for voters to forgive Trump and Moore their sins. Every vote for a populist candidate at base is about defeating or blocking the other team’s bad guy, not electing your own good guy. Bad guys on our team are fine, so long as they win. To Bannon that’s Romney’s great sin, not his Mormonism.

I think that's a superb insight!

 

Edited by Darren10

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, Duncan said:

was Bannon able to go to Vietnam? he was 18 in 1971. 

GREAT question! Which you were in that crowd. :)

Share this post


Link to post

I called my folks who joined the Church here in Canada in the 1960's. My dad joined in 1962 and Mumsie in 1967. They don't recall an uptick in calls for missionary service but they do recall American elders who had been in Vietnam and were amazed they did that tour and then another 2 years in missionary service, Mumsie said they had some elders who had that PTSD (which wasn't what it was called then but that's what it was) and one elder who had been a Green Beret or Red beret or something like that. Course they remember elders who got out of the war. My Mum said one elder commented he would rather "push our car in a Canadian blizzard than being in Vietnam" my Mum was like, you say that now.........

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

GREAT question! Which you were in that crowd. :)

I didn't go to Vietnam, I was born in 1978! Although I did see "Forrest Gump" and I remember seeing "Platoon" but just kind of

oh! hahaha! I should have asked him!!! "yeah, buddy, why didn't you send your oonka toonka over there?, criticize others!"

Edited by Duncan

Share this post


Link to post
50 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That really has not been an issue for about half a century. But if educational efforts can Merit a deferment, I would think unpaid charitable service like missionary work may also qualify. I suppose it depends on the severity of need.

I guess what Allahpundit was getting at by was to point to how Bannon's attack on Romney places the integrity of military deferments into question as Bannon was the President of the United State's top advisor for a few months and since that president is republican anyone who listened or read about Bannon's attack should rightfully hold the Republican Party accountable and have it reaffirm its commitment to holding service to one's faith in high esteem.

Rereading my post I did not phrase the question well. My question was actually intended to generate ideas as to why it is a social good to place church service as highly estimable.

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I called my folks who joined the Church here in Canada in the 1960's. My dad joined in 1962 and Mumsie in 1967. They don't recall an uptick in calls for missionary service but they do recall American elders who had been in Vietnam and were amazed they did that tour and then another 2 years in missionary service, Mumsie said they had some elders who had that PTSD (which wasn't what it was called then but that's what it was) and one elder who had been a Green Beret or Red beret or something like that. Course they remember elders who got out of the war. My Mum said one elder commented he would rather "push our car in a Canadian blizzard than being in Vietnam" my Mum was like, you say that now.........

"my Mum was like, you say that now........." - HEH!

And, you called her "Mumsie", that's cute. :)

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

"my Mum was like, you say that now........." - HEH!

And, you called her "Mumsie", that's cute. :)

watch this

 

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Duncan said:

watch this

 

I've seen that before and it's hilarious!

Share this post


Link to post
49 minutes ago, Duncan said:

was Bannon able to go to Vietnam? he was 18 in 1971. 

He served starting in 78, by which time the US was out of Vietnam.  

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I think going on a mission is a better excuse than paying off a doctor to say you have bone spurs. :vader: 

It’s legitimate to ask why he did not serve but who did Trump pay? 

Quote

Trump’s exposure to the draft, however, didn’t last long. Two months later, on Sept. 17, 1968, he reported for an armed forces physical examination and was medically disqualified, according to the ledger from his local Selective Service System draft board in Jamaica, N.Y., now in the custody of the National Archives.

The ledger does not detail why Trump failed the exam — the Selective Service destroyed all medical records and individual files after the draft ended in 1973 and the military converted to an all-volunteer force.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/questions-linger-about-trumps-draft-deferments-during-vietnam-war/2015/07/21/257677bc-2fdd-11e5-8353-1215475949f4_story.html?utm_term=.1a0a1d7f39f0

Edited by Darren10

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Duncan said:

was Bannon able to go to Vietnam? he was 18 in 1971. 

He also got a deferment but did serve in the navy after the war.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Duncan said:

was Bannon able to go to Vietnam? he was 18 in 1971. 

No.  He was a naval officer from 1976-1983, during which time he served aboard the destroyer USS Paul F. Foster as a surface warfare officer in the Pacific Fleet and, afterwards stateside as a special assistant to the Chief of Naval Operations at the Pentagon.  He has been married three times, but currently no wife.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Darren10 said:

It was an open secret that many were getting false medical waivers from their doctors especially amongst the wealthy. Considering Trump and his father operated their businesses unethically it is a logical inference that they would try something like that.

Trump took normal student deferments and when they no longer applied he was classified 1-A. Had that stood he would have been drafted. Then he had a physical and was reclassified. Trump characteristically lied about what happened and claimed he was randomly at the bottom of the list (true) but left out the medical deferment. Later he clarified with characteristic coherence: “The medical deferment is feet.”

Only a severe case of spurs is debilitating (spurs are common, about a third of Americans have them and they have no effect on the lives of most) and that should be what the doctor was talking about but I doubt it  was debilitating Spurs as they almost always get worse with age and he seems to have had no treatment or problem since.

Therefore I would bet money it was a BS diagnosis.

Edited by The Nehor

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

It was an open secret that many were getting false medical waivers from their doctors especially amongst the wealthy. Considering Trump and his father operated their businesses unethically it is a logical inference that they would try something like that.

Trump took normal student deferments and when they no longer applied he was classified 1-A. Had that stood he would have been drafted. Then he had a physical and was reclassified. Trump characteristically lied about what happened and claimed he was randomly at the bottom of the list (true) but left out the medical deferment. Later he clarified with characteristic coherence: “The medical deferment is feet.”

Only a severe case of spurs is debilitating (spurs are common, about a third of Americans have them and they have no effect on the lives of most) and that should be what the doctor was talking about but I doubt is as debilitating Spurs almost always get worse with age and he seems to have had no treatment.

Therefore I would bet money it was a BS diagnosis.

Got it. Thanks. 

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Darren10 said:

In an outstanding rebuttal to Seve Bannon's criticizing Mitt Romney for having served a mission in France for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints while others "were dying in rice patties" in Vietnam, the atheist-conservative-libertarian known online as Allahpundit writes the following:

Utah GOPers slam Bannon for claiming Romney hid behind his religion to avoid serving in Vietnam

How important should faith be in our society? In our politics? Is serving a full time mission for a church worthy of military deferments?

First of all I would like the record to show that I think Bannon was way out of line.  In fact I find him and his boss totally without merit.  With that said, I think it would be much easier to justify deferment if our missions were truly humanitarian service efforts.  Like something akin to the Peace Corps.  I also think the PR benefit of having a 60K volunteer work force out there doing real grass roots humanitarian service would be huge and would probably result in more converts than we are seeing under the current proselyting program.*

* Please note that I am a RM and I do know that missionaries perform many good works.  It is just that we are most known for knocking on doors and trying to convert people from their religion to ours.

 

Edited by sunstoned

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, sunstoned said:

First of all I would like the record to show that I think Bannon was way out of line.  In fact I find him and his boss totally without merit.  With that said, I think it would be much easier to justify deferment if our missions were truly humanitarian service efforts.  Like something akin to the Peace Corps.  I also think the PR benefit of having a 60K volunteer work force out there doing real grass roots humanitarian service would be huge and would probably result in more converts than we are seeing under the current proselyting program.*

* Please note that I am a RM and I do know that missionaries perform many good works.  It is just that we are most known for knocking on doors and trying to convert people from their religion to ours.

 

Who’s Bannon’s boss? You mean his former boss, President Trump? Yes, they are both frequently out of line but here Trump recently made very pleasant comments about the LDS religion.  https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900005091/watch-president-donald-trump-at-lds-churchs-welfare-square.html. Trump has most definitely said very undeserved things about Romney before and about Mormonism but not regarding this thread. 

Regarding an LDS mission, I don’t know what kind of mission you served but I was constantly involved in assisting others and uplifting them and I have always witnessed LDS missionaries do the same. Even when we seek to get people to join our religion, it is out of love and service which that is most successful. 

Edited by Darren10

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, Darren10 said:

Who’s Bannon’s boss? You mean his former boss, President Trump? Yes, they are both frequently out of line but here Trump recently made very pleasant comments about the LDS religion.  https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900005091/watch-president-donald-trump-at-lds-churchs-welfare-square.html. Trump has most definitely said very undeserved things about Romney before and about Mormonism but not regarding this thread. 

Regarding an LDS mission, I don’t know what kind of mission you served but I was constantly involved in assisting others and uplifting them and I have always witnessed LDS missionaries do the same. Even when we seek to get people to join our religion, it is out of love and service which that is most successful. 

He has also made some very pleasant comments about white supremacists so I kind of wish he would stop.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By BCSpace
      Seems intuitively obvious....
    • By Daniel2
      Yesterday my husband and I attended church services at the First Church Unitarian Universalist Congregation in Salt Lake City.
      The minister, Reverend Harold Straughn, related an account of Bishop Krister Stendahl’s "Three Rules for Religious Understanding," which the bishop shared in a 1985 press conference in Sweden, by way of suggestion to non-LDS religious clergy members who originally opposed to the building of an LDS temple there.
      Keeping these three rules in mind ultimately resulted in the diverse, non-religious clergy members to arrive at a shared mutual respect large enough to authorize the necessary permits for the construction of the LDS Stockholm temple.
      They are:

      When you are trying to understand another religion, you should ask the adherents of that religion, and not its enemies. Don't compare your best to their worst. Leave room for "holy envy." (By this Stendahl meant that you should be willing to recognize elements in the other religious tradition or faith that you admire and wish could, in some way, be reflected in your own religious tradition or faith.) Our UU Minister Rev. Straugh applauded the actions of the Swedish Lutheran clergy who, by keeping the above in mind, arrived at enough shared understanding to overcome their strict objection to the construction of the LDS temple.
      He then drew a correlation to the church’s recent policy change by saying, “I couldn’t help but wonder: if the LDS church would have chosen to apply those same three rules for religious understanding to how it dialogues with gay and lesbian parents, would we all be dealing with the same aftermath we’ve been facing now, in the wake of the policy and it’s affect on Utah’s religious landscape?”
      That got me thinking about how both religion and LGBT issues are often approached here on the board. I think those rules are definitely a helpful starting point (although not the ending point, either) when beginning to understanding a religion.
      I can’t help but think that some haven’t been giving gays and lesbians the same benefit of the doubt, when it comes to how those three rules could be applied:

      When you are trying to understand what it means to be gay or lesbian, you should ask gays or lesbians—not our enemies. Don’t compare “the best” heterosexuals with “the worst” homosexuals. Leave room for “holy envy”—be willing to recognize elements in gays and lesbians, and their relationships, that you admire and wish you could, in some way, reflect in your own self or relationships.
    • By Darren10
      More and more, in the name of equality, equality for marriage, equality in healthcare, the government is more and more stepping in and telling religion what it can and cannot do. Here's a case where the state of California is ordering churches to pay for surgical abortions.
      I cannot begin to express how disturbing a trend we are seeing where government is regulating churches. Our number one freedom is Freedom of Religion. Freedom of Religion is pivotal. If it goes, so do all our individual freedoms. The more power We the People give government the more individual liberty gets pushed aside. The two cannot coexist. Never has. Never will until a perfect person rules government but no one knows when that will happen.
      http://thefederalist.com/2014/10/22/california-orders-churches-to-fund-abortions-or-else/
    • By Coreyb
      So for a good while now, much of the apostolic counsel to youth and young adults (my people) has been to share the gospel online. I am all for doing this, but not really sure what to do. Most of the Mormon internet evangelism I see is endless regurgitation of short videos and memes produced by the Church, with an occasional testimonial posted on a Facebook wall that resembles what you might hear at church on fast sunday, but with more hash-tags. Then there is the bloggernacle, but to be honest, I don't think many non-mormons read mormon blogs, and given the fact that they tend to be endless debates on pointless subjects, I wouldn't recommend it to any.
       
      So, do ya'll have any suggestions? Does anyone on here make an effort to proselytize online? This is a serious question I have thought about quite a bit
       
    • By BCSpace
       
      Any of you seeing yourselves disappear?

×