Shortened Missions for Athletes?

[bluebell]

On 11/29/2025 at 2:54 AM, Rain said:

There were some MP who kept them before covid.  On the Missionay Mommas group I found out that became a problem during covid when some countries were shutting down. I don't remember any details, but there were several stories of what was happening with their children.

That would be crazy.  I can see the missionaries having a say over what their parents wanted, but I don't think a MP should be allowed to keep anyone against their will.

[Rain]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

That would be crazy.  I can see the missionaries having a say over what their parents wanted, but I don't think a MP should be allowed to keep anyone against their will.

I probably need to make what I said more clear.  They kept the passports, not the missionaries. You could say he kept the missionaries since, depending where they are, they couldn't travel without the passport, but I have not been told by anyone who actually knows why these MPs were keeping passports.

[webbles]

3 hours ago, Rain said:

I probably need to make what I said more clear.  They kept the passports, not the missionaries. You could say he kept the missionaries since, depending where they are, they couldn't travel without the passport, but I have not been told by anyone who actually knows why these MPs were keeping passports.

 

On my mission, my passport was left at the mission house.  I had my visa with me and that was it (and even then, it was rarely refreshed).  And I felt like that was a good idea since I was robbed once in my house.  I would prefer having my passport somewhere safe.  I never tried to leave early without permission, so I don't know if he would have prevented me from leaving.  I only know of one missionary that wasn't allowed to go home but he didn't need a passport as he was a citizen of the country and had his regular id with him.  And his father was involved and wouldn't let him so it wasn't just the mission president saying no.

[Calm]

50 minutes ago, webbles said:

And I felt like that was a good idea since I was robbed once in my house. 

I feel like missionaries would be easy targets as they would be very visible.  It wouldn’t take long to figure out they weren’t home during the day or take much effort to rip off a backpack that wasn’t fully attached to its owner, so I can see value in keeping passports at the mission office.  My brother’s apartment got broken into and everything taken not long after he arrived in Australia (first Spanish speaking set of missionaries there, which seemed very odd at the time) and for some reason he felt he had to deal with it himself, so made due with his one set of clothing he was wearing for way too long.

I never carried my visa with me when in Canada and completely forgot we carried them with us when in Russia…or rather my husband mostly did because he wore the fanny pack, lol (Russians were not typically friendly unless introduced by another Russian in Moscow, so I didn’t go out on my own much, too nerve wracking just being stared at while I was trying to buy something with my few words and lots of pointing), so it didn’t occur to me now that they could be split up, one didn’t have to have both if stopped by police or for anything needing id.

Edited December 1, 2025 by Calm

[Stargazer]

On 11/23/2025 at 7:48 PM, MustardSeed said:

Mission President: no. 
missionary: buys ticket gets uber goes home.  Also gets dressed himself but that’s obvious. 

Many years ago a young man from my ward went on his mission to Germany, made it about half-way or less, and just decided he was done. So, he left his apartment (don't know if he told his companion or not), went to the nearest US Army base where there were recruiters, enlisted in the Army, and off he went. I never found out what happened ultimately because his father was a career soldier stationed at a local post, and was transferred elsewhere not terribly long thereafter. But the family was really upset, understandably. The young man was fairly unconventional in a number of ways, and quite an interesting character, so what happened with him didn't seem all that big a break from the usual! I prefer to think that everything worked out for them all, in the end.

On 11/23/2025 at 7:48 PM, MustardSeed said:

i’ve actually heard of people asking to be released from their callings, and the bishop tells them no. And I’m like, wat? 

There's the opposite, of course. While ringing doorbells on my mission in Germany we ran into a member of the church who had been the Relief Society president in the local ward, and she went totally inactive years before because she resented being released from the calling. She was still resentful about it, but on the other hand, really missed church, wanting to come back, but felt too embarrassed about it all. 

 

[The Nehor]

On 11/23/2025 at 2:35 PM, Calm said:

Yeah, it’s bizarre to me.  Sure, try and talk them out if it, though preferably avoid threads of losing celestial brownie points or variations on that theme.  Threatening damnation, loss of faith, kids going wayward should be left up to God if he cares to do it.

Because it is sure going to increase someone’s faith if their mission president/bishop/whatever church leader tries to hold them hostage.

I have heard horror stories of mission presidents holding on to passports for safety (not a bad thing in some cases)/control of missionaries (just wrong).  Is that actually possible?  I would be very nervous with some young men and women keeping their papers safe, so I don’t have an automatic issue with that, but it’s just wrong not to treat the passports as their property and hand them over on request.  The only reason I can think of is if there was an extreme mental health issue involved and holding on to it kept the missionary in safe company as they were sent back home with someone going with them, at which time they are turned over to parents to care for.

Curious if there is any info on this from anyone here as I trust most here will not make up sensational stories.

In my Mission passports were stored in a safe at the Mission Office. There is a risk of losing it. I had the place I was living burgled and tossed several times while I was out. Could I see a Mission President refusing to give back a passport? Yes. I don’t think either of mine would have but I could see a Mission President refusing until after some cooling off period or something like that but I would hope they have schooled Mission Presidents to realize what kind of legal liability that is exposing them and the church to.

[Notatbm]

On 11/30/2025 at 1:37 PM, bluebell said:

Yes, assuming dishonesty on the part of the girl and/or family to explain it is on option.  Knowing her and her family, I don't personally see a reason to assume the worst of them to make a different narrative work.  I think in this case an 'i don't know' works better.

It’s not dishonest if you don’t tell someone something and you had no duty to disclose it. Pres oaks would definitely take that position. 
 

if they did give more info that made the church choose to service mission option and they didn’t  share same info with you then yea they could be lying. Most people dont want their personal issues aired to the ward. So I don’t blame them. I’m going to assume they are since the church’s stated policy on selection for service mission isn’t a perfectly healthy missionary capable of knocking on doors. There is an issue of some sort. Doesn’t make it bad, just makes it what it is. 

[bluebell]

4 hours ago, Notatbm said:

It’s not dishonest if you don’t tell someone something and you had no duty to disclose it. Pres oaks would definitely take that position. 
 

if they did give more info that made the church choose to service mission option and they didn’t  share same info with you then yea they could be lying. Most people dont want their personal issues aired to the ward. So I don’t blame them. I’m going to assume they are since the church’s stated policy on selection for service mission isn’t a perfectly healthy missionary capable of knocking on doors. There is an issue of some sort. Doesn’t make it bad, just makes it what it is. 

In this instance, they gave talks over the pulpit discussing their surprise.  

[MustardSeed]

Refusing to give a passport to someone?  There must be some sort of law around that.  
At any rate, refusing to allow a missionary to go home (?!?) is a recipe for disaster. 

IMO of course 

Edited December 2, 2025 by MustardSeed

[Notatbm]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

In this instance, they gave talks over the pulpit discussing their surprise.  

Yea I’m betting it’s no surprise. Concealing some issues which is ok by me. I don’t air my issues to anyone esp at church. 
 

I only say this as I have not heard one instance of a service mission assignment out of the chute for a youth unless there are issues of done sort. I have multiple family members in stake presidencies, bishoprics and a mission pres and last time we discussed this there was 100% agreement no one gets an initial calling to that if they are cleared to do a door knocking mission. This came up in a discussion about ysa rm s who did service missions being regarded as not having served a real mission. This happened to a family member last year. 
 

anyway I’m sure  it’s possible. Maybe the church changed its stance privately but chose to lie about the criteria on the public website. The church has a verifiable history of  lying about stuff so that’s a def possibility. 

Edited December 3, 2025 by Notatbm

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Notatbm said:

Yea I’m betting it’s no surprise. Concealing some issues which is ok by me. I don’t air my issues to anyone esp at church. 
 

I only say this as I have not heard one instance of a service mission assignment out of the chute for a youth unless there are issues of done sort. I have multiple family members in stake presidencies, bishoprics and a mission pres and last time we discussed this there was 100% agreement no one gets an initial calling to that if they are cleared to do a door knocking mission. This came up in a discussion about ysa rm s who did service missions being regarded as not having served a real mission. This happened to a family member last year. 
 

anyway I’m sure  it’s possible. Maybe the church changed its stance privately but chose to lie about the criteria on the public website. The church has a verifiable history of  lying about stuff so that’s a def possibility. 

 Can you provide the reference (a quote from the website or something) where the church says that only those who with certain issues can be called to a service mission?  I looked at the website and it seemed to leave the option open for anyone, but I could have easily missed something. It's not super easy to navigate.

[webbles]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

 Can you provide the reference (a quote from the website or something) where the church says that only those who with certain issues can be called to a service mission?  I looked at the website and it seemed to leave the option open for anyone, but I could have easily missed something. It's not super easy to navigate.

The 2018 letter kind of says that - https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/bc/content/shared/english/service-missionary/Service-Missions-for-Young-Missionaries-Leaders.pdf?lang=eng

Quote

Those who may be called to a service mission include worthy young men (ages 18–25) and young women (ages 19–25) unable to serve a proselyting mission for physical, mental, or emotional reasons.

Also, later on, it does give an indication that a service mission calling could be a surprise:

Quote

A missionary candidate does not choose which kind of mission he or she will serve. All applicants are considered first for proselyting missions. Young men and women who are unable to be called as proselyting missionaries for physical, mental, or emotional reasons may be called to serve the Lord as service missionaries.

A stake president does not determine whether an applicant is called to a proselyting mission or a service mission.

It could be that the girl or the family or even the stake president don't know what triggered her to be assigned to the service mission.  Since it isn't an option to choose (news to me since I thought it was an option) and since the stake president can't determine it, none of them might know what was the deciding factor.  She could have been just barely over the tipping point, what ever it is.

[Notatbm]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

 Can you provide the reference (a quote from the website or something) where the church says that only those who with certain issues can be called to a service mission?  I looked at the website and it seemed to leave the option open for anyone, but I could have easily missed something. It's not super easy to navigate.

 

Weebles got it

[bluebell]

10 hours ago, Notatbm said:

 

Weebles got it

Thanks.  It doesn't sound like the church has lied about anything in what weebles provided.  

[bluebell]

11 hours ago, webbles said:

The 2018 letter kind of says that - https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/bc/content/shared/english/service-missionary/Service-Missions-for-Young-Missionaries-Leaders.pdf?lang=eng

Also, later on, it does give an indication that a service mission calling could be a surprise:

It could be that the girl or the family or even the stake president don't know what triggered her to be assigned to the service mission.  Since it isn't an option to choose (news to me since I thought it was an option) and since the stake president can't determine it, none of them might know what was the deciding factor.  She could have been just barely over the tipping point, what ever it is.

Thanks!

I think they used to be able to choose (or at least the stake president could recommend) but that that has since changed as the church has equalized service missions with proselytizing missions. 

I don't know if many members are aware of the changes that have happened with service missionaries since 2018.  In 2024, for example, they were integrated into the teaching missions where they live and are now under the direction of the mission president of their area rather than the stake president, like they used to be.  They are also (where able) assigned to a companion that they can go on teaching appointments with certain days or times during the week.  They have regular interviews with the mission president, attend zone meetings, etc, just like pros. missionaries do.  That kind of stuff.

[bluebell]

I was listening to conference talks this morning and completely forgot that Elder Evanson spoke about service missions and missionaries in October.  

At the end of his talk he says-"If teaching missionaries are the Lord's mouth, then service missionaries are the Lord's hands, and you are not second-class missionaries.  Through service we change hearts--and the world."

I'm sure the church recognizes that for some members service missions are see as 'less than' proselytizing missions but it seems like they are working hard to change that image, because it does not reflect reality.

[MustardSeed]

55 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I was listening to conference talks this morning and completely forgot that Elder Evanson spoke about service missions and missionaries in October.  

At the end of his talk he says-"If teaching missionaries are the Lord's mouth, then service missionaries are the Lord's hands, and you are not second-class missionaries.  Through service we change hearts--and the world."

I'm sure the church recognizes that for some members service missions are see as 'less than' proselytizing missions but it seems like they are working hard to change that image, because it does not reflect reality.

I have to admit that I see service mission as the alternative to being able to serve a regular mission due to challenges and limitations.

So if I applied to go into Mission was given a service mission I would be completely confused.  
 

That said, the only mission I would be interested in serving at this point we’d be a service mission even if I woke up and was 18 years old. 

[webbles]

7 hours ago, bluebell said:

Thanks!

I think they used to be able to choose (or at least the stake president could recommend) but that that has since changed as the church has equalized service missions with proselytizing missions. 

I don't know if many members are aware of the changes that have happened with service missionaries since 2018.  In 2024, for example, they were integrated into the teaching missions where they live and are now under the direction of the mission president of their area rather than the stake president, like they used to be.  They are also (where able) assigned to a companion that they can go on teaching appointments with certain days or times during the week.  They have regular interviews with the mission president, attend zone meetings, etc, just like pros. missionaries do.  That kind of stuff.

Yeah, it is pretty cool.  I've followed it a bit since I expect several of my sons to go on a service mission if they go at all.

[Okrahomer]

3 hours ago, webbles said:

I expect several of my sons to go on a service mission if they go at all.

If not too personal:  How many sons do you have? (I am #5 of 6).

[webbles]

14 minutes ago, Okrahomer said:

If not too personal:  How many sons do you have? (I am #5 of 6).

5

[The Nehor]

On 12/2/2025 at 1:55 PM, MustardSeed said:

Refusing to give a passport to someone?  There must be some sort of law around that.  
At any rate, refusing to allow a missionary to go home (?!?) is a recipe for disaster. 

IMO of course 

Yeah, that would be illegal. And if you refuse to give them their legal documents in order to keep them at volunteer labor in the meantime that benefits your institution it could potentially fall under human trafficking, kidnapping, forced labor, and probably a bunch of other crimes.

[Tacenda]

changed mind

Edited December 6, 2025 by Tacenda

[manol]

On 12/1/2025 at 6:18 PM, The Nehor said:

In my Mission passports were stored in a safe at the Mission Office. There is a risk of losing it. I had the place I was living burgled and tossed several times while I was out. Could I see a Mission President refusing to give back a passport? Yes. I don’t think either of mine would have but I could see a Mission President refusing until after some cooling off period or something like that but I would hope they have schooled Mission Presidents to realize what kind of legal liability that is exposing them and the church to.

My recollection is that I carried my passport with me at all times in case we were stopped and questioned by the police.  It came in handy for that more than once. 

[anecdotal tangent] I became pretty good at managing police stops.  This was in a rather secular European country.  I would go into "pushy missionary mode" (reserved only for occasions like this) and boldly say to the lead cop: "We are missionaries from the Church of Jesus Christ.  We have a message about how you can be with your family forever.  When can we come to your home and teach you and your family how to be together forever?"  Of course they would refuse, so I'd follow up with, "Don't you want to be with your family forever?"

Worked like a charm.  They couldn't get away from us fast enough.

I also carried my ticket home in my wallet.  Let me explain:

There was only one other adult member of the LDS Church in my extended family, and most of the non-members were horrified by the thought of me being a Mormon missionary.  My non-member grandfather gave me a company credit card that had a two thousand dollar limit (which was a fair amount of money forty-five years ago) and told me to use it to come home anytime I wanted to.  In other words, he wanted me to have the POWER TO CHOOSE to come home at my fingertips.  I really appreciated that.  Never used the card, but somehow having it in my wallet made it all the more "my choice" to stay. 

Speaking of the "my choice" aspect, my non-member step-father unexpectedly gave me a large amount of money in the lead-up to me going.  He said to me, "I know you're thinking about going on a mission, and I know you don't have the money for it.  So here's a thousand dollars so you at least have the CHOICE to go if you decide to."  Back in those days the missionary and his family were expected to pay for the missionary's expenses.  Between that and money I earned in the next several months I was indeed able to make the choice.

I was then, and still am, extremely grateful for the members of my family who were not members of the LDS Church but who wanted me to have the freedom and power to choose whether to go and when to come home.

[/tangent]

Edited December 6, 2025 by manol