Raising The Bar For Missionaries

[Duncan]

I am by no means advocating sending anyone and everyone on a mission because I served when it seemed that they did and let me tell ya..heck I went! Anyways, I can count on one less then one hand how many of my friends who didn't go are still active. I just wonder what do we do with those those that don't go or can't go and not to have them go into inactivity or as I have heard "those that don't clear the bar end up going to the bar"?

[Storm Rider]

I am by no means advocating sending anyone and everyone on a mission because I served when it seemed that they did and let me tell ya..heck I went! Anyways, I can count on one less then one hand how many of my friends who didn't go are still active. I just wonder what do we do with those those that don't go or can't go and not to have them go into inactivity or as I have heard "those that don't clear the bar end up going to the bar"?

I am one that does not believe that every member is best suited to serve a proselyting mission. However, I think every member can serve in some capacity. Currently, the Church does not offer (and may never) the opportunity to serve for every member. This is more a function of the Church's purpose and current size than anything else. It may be possible as the Church grows significantly it can begin to offer missions that focus strictly on serving the needs of the poor and indigent.

These middle years between stabilized adulthood and the late teen years is a difficult period for many; particularly those that are already prone to not be interested in following a path of discipleship. We can't force a horse to drink when taken to cool water, nor can we force obedience upon our young adults that aren't interested in the message. We can always improve in being more understanding and more welcoming, but out of respect for their choice we can only stand ready for when they feel the need to come, to worship Christ, and to partake of the Sacrament again.

The Church is very similar to a parent that sees their child depart from the path of righteousness; it is incredibly painful to watch, but this is their own struggle and they must choose. We can knock on the door, but they must open it.

[Darth_Bill]

I'm not sure, but I think some things will have to change, and I think in someways they have. I shouldn't have gone, not because of lack of testimony or unworthiness, but because I am extremely shy and do better with things and computers than people. It was the worst two years of my life and I had a nervous breakdown right in the middle of it. The church, culturally and institutionally doesn't have contingency plans for people like me. I was faced with some horrible options, or at least, I felt they were horrible.

Even today, I don't feel free to talk about my experience, lest it be seen as weakness on my part or discouraging to those who want to go. I know I am going to be completely honest with my children when that time comes.

[Storm Rider]

I'm not sure, but I think some things will have to change, and I think in someways they have. I shouldn't have gone, not because of lack of testimony or unworthiness, but because I am extremely shy and do better with things and computers than people. It was the worst two years of my life and I had a nervous breakdown right in the middle of it. The church, culturally and institutionally doesn't have contingency plans for people like me. I was faced with some horrible options, or at least, I felt they were horrible.

Even today, I don't feel free to talk about my experience, lest it be seen as weakness on my part or discouraging to those who want to go. I know I am going to be completely honest with my children when that time comes.

It is so unfortunate that round peg and try to force it into a square hole. Individuals such as yourself should have never felt obligated to serve and an alternative path of service would have been so much easier. Alternatively, we as a body must be much more accepting when a young man does not serve a mission. It is not that they do not go for lack of a testimony or strength, but they are just not suited for the work. This is a pretty tall order and more than anything we need to make sure that we are raising youth that are confident enough in their own choice that they are capable of looking beyond the expectations of others.

[Deborah]

I do know of some young men who were called to do service missions, often close to home. There are alternatives and anyone who really wants to serve can find a way to do so. Anyone who is interested in an official calling should talk to their bishop and see what opportunities are available.

I had one son who served a mission and one who didn't. This was way back before the new standards. The son who didn't serve always felt bad later but he really could not have done it at the time. He suffered from depression and had so many other problems to deal with. As an adult he is a great missionary just through his example. I was glad he didn't go. I don't know that he would have been able to stay.

[KevinG]

A huge part of the issue is cultural. When the announcement was made that the bar would be raised it was also said that a mission should not be looked upon as a "rite of passage" for young men.

Unfortunately I've witnessed attitude among young women ad their parents about men who did not serve a full time mission being less suitable for marriage. This is no different from when I was a young adult convert and some of the single women would not consider dating me. (That worked out well as I got the best one in the bunch anyway).

The tongues were also wagging among the sisters when two young men returned home earlier than two years from their missions (separate incidents). One was for medical reasons but he kept it pretty private. Some of the sisters couldn't resist gossiping. One was my son for personal reasons - and again he was looked at by some as a leper.

I think the higher bar is warranted for the health and safety of the missionaries as well as the success of the work they do. We don't need to send kids overseas to "fix them". The mission presidents I have heard from are positive about the results of having the missionaries better prepared to focus on their work. But along with the more selective requirements we need to learn as members that there are many ways to become a healthy and faithful adult member- not all of which go through the mission field.

My son is courting a wonderful young woman who is taking the discussions and my oldest daughter is dating a diamond in the rough who has a testimony, is working hard on his education, is respectful and chaste with my daughter; but because of some incidents when he was younger didn't serve a mission. I feel very strongly that both of these potential mates are good to, and good for my children. If all goes as planned they will make wonderful spouses and good Saints. That is all I need to know about them.

[Anijen]

I am the WML, I meet with the Elders usually twice a week. One of the things they told me is the church is thinking about is to stop sending the Elders were the church is strong and using them were it is not. For example most missions in Utah would end the same for wherever there are strong wards or branches. They then would have the same number of missionaries they have today but will be able to utilize them in areas of greater need. The one Elder I heard this from said that it will be the members jobs to takeover for the missionaries in the strong areas. The more I think about this the more I think I can see the hand of the Lord in the work. We often rely too much on the Elders when we as members need to help with missionary work. Many of us do not understand that when the bar was raised for the missionaries that did not exclude us, it was raised for us as well.

FWIW I asked him about the source of this and said he heard it from a GA at a mission conference. Anyway it is something to think about.

Anijen

Edited August 25, 2011 by Anijen

[Duncan]

I am the WML, I meet with the Elders usually twice a week. One of the things they told me is the church is thinking about is to stop sending the Elders were the church is strong and using them were it is not. For example most missions in Utah would end the same for wherever there are strong wards or branches. They then would have the same number of missionaries they have today but will be able to utilize them in areas of greater need. The one Elder I heard this from said that it will be the members jobs to takeover for the missionaries in the strong areas. The more I think about this the more I think I can see the hand of the Lord in the work. We often rely too much on the Elders when we as members need to help with missionary work. Many of us do not understand that when the bar was raised for the missionaries that did not exclude us, it was raised for us as well.

FWIW I asked him about the source of this and said he heard it from a GA at a mission conference. Anyway it is something to think about.

Anijen

the mission I live in has reduced the missionaries to about 50-60 and it looks like there are about one set per ward now but they seem to be baptizing more anyways so good on them.

[Ticketyboo]

I am the WML, I meet with the Elders usually twice a week. One of the things they told me is the church is thinking about is to stop sending the Elders were the church is strong and using them were it is not. For example most missions in Utah would end the same for wherever there are strong wards or branches. They then would have the same number of missionaries they have today but will be able to utilize them in areas of greater need. The one Elder I heard this from said that it will be the members jobs to takeover for the missionaries in the strong areas. The more I think about this the more I think I can see the hand of the Lord in the work. We often rely too much on the Elders when we as members need to help with missionary work. Many of us do not understand that when the bar was raised for the missionaries that did not exclude us, it was raised for us as well.

FWIW I asked him about the source of this and said he heard it from a GA at a mission conference. Anyway it is something to think about.

Anijen

Hi Anijen,

I'm currently serving as BML & your post has certainly got me thinking.

Our Branch has been consistently told over the last few years that we were in danger of losing our misionaries because we were underperforming.

This force majeure was because our Mission was going to be receiving fewer missionaries, as a result of Western Europe being scheduled to have missionary numbers cut, in favour of areas like Africa & South America.

Whatever missionaries were going to be assigned to our mission, would be concentrated on successful units. Those units might have multiple companionships, while other units would have none.

So I'm wondering, is this a change of direction, or a gentle let down in the form of a subtle rebranding?

Our missionaries tell me that Elder Bednar will be addressing them soon, so we might find out more then.

I concur fully with your thoughts about our role as member missionaries & what I previously thought was the solely British prevalent view that missionary work was for the missionaries. (An intentional overstatement)

[katherine the great]

I think that until church leaders actively work to remove the stigma that becomes attached to young men who do not serve a mission, there will be young men who serve unwillingly or unworthily. The stigma is a result of President Kimball (during the era that I joined the church) stating very clearly that all young men should serve a mission. The attitude absolutely permeated my generation. I had absolute faith in the Prophet's words and I believed that young men who did not serve missions were somehow "less." In fact, I believed that a young man who was missionary age and did not choose to serve a mission should not be allowed to marry in the temple. Now, of course, I can't believe how ridiculous I was, but that was the attitude. I think the stigma has lessened somewhat, but I still see it everywhere. I think it is a shame. I don't think that a comment here and there from a leader about "rights of passage" and such is just not enough. Something is going on though. By the time I was in college, I only knew of one young man who had returned home early from his mission (by choice.) In the past 20 years, it seems like someone is coming home every few months.

[bluebell]

A huge part of the issue is cultural. When the announcement was made that the bar would be raised it was also said that a mission should not be looked upon as a "rite of passage" for young men.

Unfortunately I've witnessed attitude among young women ad their parents about men who did not serve a full time mission being less suitable for marriage. This is no different from when I was a young adult convert and some of the single women would not consider dating me. (That worked out well as I got the best one in the bunch anyway).

The tongues were also wagging among the sisters when two young men returned home earlier than two years from their missions (separate incidents). One was for medical reasons but he kept it pretty private. Some of the sisters couldn't resist gossiping. One was my son for personal reasons - and again he was looked at by some as a leper.

I think the higher bar is warranted for the health and safety of the missionaries as well as the success of the work they do. We don't need to send kids overseas to "fix them". The mission presidents I have heard from are positive about the results of having the missionaries better prepared to focus on their work. But along with the more selective requirements we need to learn as members that there are many ways to become a healthy and faithful adult member- not all of which go through the mission field.

My son is courting a wonderful young woman who is taking the discussions and my oldest daughter is dating a diamond in the rough who has a testimony, is working hard on his education, is respectful and chaste with my daughter; but because of some incidents when he was younger didn't serve a mission. I feel very strongly that both of these potential mates are good to, and good for my children. If all goes as planned they will make wonderful spouses and good Saints. That is all I need to know about them.

I completely agree that not serving a mission does not mean that a young man is automatically unworthy of anything (including the attentions of faithful LDS young women).

I do think though that if a young man hasn't served a mission, young women should learn more about his reasons for not doing so and should take those into account when decided whether or not he's someone she wants to pursue romantically. Not serving a mission doesn't necessarily mean anything (just like serving one doesn't necessarily mean anything either) but it should be explored, in my opinion.

I don't think there's anything wrong with a young woman who doesn't want to date someone because he didn't want to serve a mission but was otherwise (personality, emotionally, mentally and physically) capable of going and never grew out of that attitude. If that level (or kind) of committment to the Lord is important to a Young woman in a potential spouse, then I see nothing wrong with it.

I don't think such boys should be ostracized though, or spoken ill of.

[Scott Lloyd]

I am by no means advocating sending anyone and everyone on a mission because I served when it seemed that they did and let me tell ya..heck I went! Anyways, I can count on one less then one hand how many of my friends who didn't go are still active. I just wonder what do we do with those those that don't go or can't go and not to have them go into inactivity or as I have heard "those that don't clear the bar end up going to the bar"?

There may be something of the post hoc fallacy in the notion that not allowing a young man to serve a mission sends him spiraling downward into a life of Church inactivity at best and apostasy at worst. It may well be that not being mission-worthy is a symptom, not a cause.

At the risk of seeming too anecdotal here, I will compare my situation to that of a close relative of mine. We are the same age and basically grew up together. When we came of age, I went on a mission; he remained at home and married his girlfriend.

It is now many years later. While we have both remained active and faithful in the Church, he has been in bishoprics and high councils, been a bishop and is now a member of a stake presidency; I have had none of those experiences so far. My mission did have a positive influence on my life, but his decision not to serve a mission appears not to have had an especially lasting impact.

I guess the take-away point here is that not serving a mission need not mean the end of LDS life as we know it.

Edited August 29, 2011 by Scott Lloyd

[ERMD]

There may be something of the post hoc in the notion that not allowing a young man to serve a mission sends him spiraling downward into a life of Church inactivity at best and apostasy at worst. It may well be that not being mission-worthy is a symptom, not a cause.

At the risk of seeming too anecdotal here, I will compare my situation to that of a close relative of mine. We were the same age and basically grew up together. When we came of age, I went on a mission; he remained at home and married his girlfriend.

It is now many years later. While we have both remained active and faithful in the Church, he has been in bishoprics and high councils, been a bishop and is now a member of a stake presidency; I have had none of those experiences so far. My mission did have a positive influence on my life, but his failure to serve a mission appears not to have had an especially lasting impact.

I guess the take-away point here is that not serving a mission need not mean the end of LDS life as we know it.

I agree. I have two brothers; both did not serve a mission, and I did. One has been a YM president, EQ president, high councilor, HPG leader, and branch president. The other has served in YM and EQ presidencies. Both married in the temple.

It can be done.

[Duncan]

Yeah I don't buy into the notion that your life will be better for serving then not, my bro in law didn't serve and I don't see a lot of problems for him and my sister! About 10 or 11 years I visited a guy in the psych ward who tried to committ suicide because he got sent home from France, the Bishop was furious at him because, according to the Bishop, it reflects badly on him for sending him out. That has been my experience and he probably would have been better for not being made to go out. There were other issues involved but he shouldn't have gone and would IMO been better off and hopefully active today.

[Lyr]

I'm glad to see people talking about this. I didn't go on a mission because I left the church at 15 and came back when I was in my late twenties. In the years since I have come back to the church I have never, until recently, been made to feel inadequate or unworthy of the Lords blessings because I did not go on a mission. My wife and I recently relocated and one of the first Sunday's at our new ward one of the speakers made some remarks on how men who did not serve missions were unworthy of marriage . The borderline paraphilia of the missionary coupled with the heresy of "prosperity gospel" that seems to have infected my new ward makes it real hard to keep going back. Then again it's almost like a chance to live some parts of Alma.

[Cobalt-70]

Having to go on a mission when you aren't really "into it" is bad, but probably worse is being classified as a "reject" under the raised bar standard. For example, if you don't feel worthy to go on a mission and you choose not to go of your own free will, that's one thing. But it's another thing if you really want to go on a mission, but you are denied that opportunity because several years prior, you had one-too-many sex partners, or you have Asperger's, or you can't read, or you smoked pot when you were 18 1/2, or you are a recovering alcoholic. I feel bad for those guys. If they've been carefully scrutinized and marked "unfit for service," they probably feel like second-class Mormons.

Interestingly, when they changed the standards, the number of new converts decreased in roughly the same proportion as the decrease in the number of missionaries. So you can't really say that those "unfit" missionaries were "dead weight" on the system. Anecdotally, some of the most effective missionaries I knew probably wouldn't have qualified under the new standards. At the same time, some of the worst missionaries I knew were as far as I know perfectly fit under the new standards. The same pressures that make people go on a mission despite not really being "into it" are still there, both under the old and new standards. The only real difference is that some people who want to go, now can't. And the pressures are probably even greater now, because there is even more reason to think that there is "something wrong" with any male who doesn't go on a mission.

[seriously honestly]

What are the new qualifications/limitation? I'm trying to find them on the website, but it might be easier just to ask...

[KevinG]

Having to go on a mission when you aren't really "into it" is bad, but probably worse is being classified as a "reject" under the raised bar standard. For example, if you don't feel worthy to go on a mission and you choose not to go of your own free will, that's one thing. But it's another thing if you really want to go on a mission, but you are denied that opportunity because several years prior, you had one-too-many sex partners, or you have Asperger's, or you can't read, or you smoked pot when you were 18 1/2, or you are a recovering alcoholic. I feel bad for those guys. If they've been carefully scrutinized and marked "unfit for service," they probably feel like second-class Mormons.

You can have all sorts of sins and go on a mission as long as you dont' admit it to the Bishop.

I had lots of heart to hearts with my son who returned about how his honesty with his mission president and with his situation was brave and upright given he would have to face stares and gossip at home. Meanwhile another "golden boy" from the ward admitted his problems with pot and sexual activity in the singles ward a few weeks ago.

In the long run who is worse off? The guy who came home because he realized his condition would be a detriment to his mission work or the kid who lied to go on his mission?

Personally I'm glad it was my kid who was honest. I think the short term pain he experienced with his gut wrenching decision (before sending him home, the mission president said he should consider his full time mission as honorably completed despite his struggles) will spare him ongoing doubt and guilt in this life and the next.

But my original point - that we need to be aware of how our culture supports youth; begs that we support honesty, repentance and facing our weakness vs. encouraging hiding our sins.

[Sky]

The reasons why some people are not able to serve missions are varied, but in a nutshell, sexual transgressions are perhaps the biggest hindrance. Repentance and forgiveness are possible, but unfortunately these sins could still prevent someone from serving.

In the words of Elder Ballard, the days of the ‘repent and go’ missionary are over.

Making judgments or gossiping about people who don’t serve or who come home early is obviously not okay. I sincerely hope the Church can find some way to accommodate members who want to serve missions, but for one reason or another can’t do it.

The good thing is that we can all be missionaries – it is amazing to realize how many people know that we are Latter-day Saints and are watching us.

[Calm]

My wife and I recently relocated and one of the first Sunday's at our new ward one of the speakers made some remarks on how men who did not serve missions were unworthy of marriage .

People don't seem to realize that marriage can be a mission in and of itself, especially these days.

If anyone else ever makes that comment (and you have the opportunity as well as kids), you should point out that few missionaries go to the lengths to supporting their companions in the faith and fellowship their investigators that you do your spouse and kids....and if you don't have children, you can use those you work with every day or someone else as your example.

Edited August 25, 2011 by calmoriah

[Calm]

In the past it was not seen as a worthiness issue if young men didn't go on a mission nor was it seen as something required for the 'best husband material'. Then things changed as emphasis on missionary work increased again (I am assuming here that missionary work was somewhat set aside for awhile in comparison with the earlier days of the Church). Policies and programs have changed again and there is a greater emphasis on members doing missionary work (not only the idea of talking to your neighbours such as occurred with 'every member a missionary', but more missionary specific work/callings). It will take time for our culture to adjust and come up with ways to make it work and make use of our 'human resources' as best as we can, but eventually as more varied missions including parttime or stay at home full time service, teaching and other missions become available, there will be a shift in perceptions as well.

[katherine the great]

My wife and I recently relocated and one of the first Sunday's at our new ward one of the speakers made some remarks on how men who did not serve missions were unworthy of marriage .

There is generally a "village idiot" in every ward.

[katherine the great]

It will take time for our culture to adjust and come up with ways to make it work and make use of our 'human resources' as best as we can, but eventually as more varied missions including parttime or stay at home full time service, teaching and other missions become available, there will be a shift in perceptions as well.

I hope so.

[cinepro]

I guess the take-away point here is that not serving a mission need not mean the end of LDS life as we know it.

Excellent points.

Though my advice to any young man that doesn't serve a mission is to find some way to attend Church in a different ward.

[KevinG]

Excellent points.

Though my advice to any young man that doesn't serve a mission is to find some way to attend Church in a different ward.

...or at least not Lyr's ward.

I swear as I get older I'm more tempted to blurt out snark in the middle of meetings. If someone taught that men who didn't serve missions were not worthy of marriage I would have been tempted to blourt out "Well, damn! You heard it over the pulpit dear, better get those divorce papers filed!"