An Exemplary Mission?

[HappyJackWagon]

That it bothers you so much is interesting also.  My response is as inconsequential as his CFR yet it seems to have struck a nerve with you.  Why?

It bothers me because it's petty and it's rude. And why do it? It seems like you are incapable of accepting 1- you're wrong or 2- someone else has a thoughtful position they can back up.

 

Why not just say "thank you" and move on instead of being snarky to someone who provided precisely what you asked for. There's no need to be disagreeable in this instance so why be that way? Habit?

[ERayR]

But I do agree. Overzealous obedience to humans not matter what station or position they hold is a dangerous position.

 

I have no problem with that. 

[ERayR]

Why not just say "thank you" and move on instead of being snarky to someone who provided precisely what you asked for. There's no need to be disagreeable in this instance so why be that way? Habit?

 

Because I think it absurd that some statement made by someone who has been dead for a hundred years be dragged up and presented as if it is of great importance. 

 

Now to cancel the derail.

[The Nehor]

Because I think it absurd that some statement made by someone who has been dead for a hundred years be dragged up and presented as if it is of great importance. 

 

Now to cancel the derail.

Yeah, that Joseph Smith was quite absurd. He dug up stuff over a millenia old and presented it as something of importance. What a nut.

[ERayR]

Yeah, that Joseph Smith was quite absurd. He dug up stuff over a millenia old and presented it as something of importance. What a nut.

 

There are good nuts and bad nuts.  It pays to be able to differentiate.

[Avatar4321]

Not sure what the problem with striving for exact obedience.

Nor do I see how the we can't expect the Lord to bless us for obedience

[bcuzbcuz]

The principle of obedience is a fundamental and important principle, but prefacing it with a qualifier like "exact" turns it into a false doctrine and a bad doctrine. I can't believe it is a published phrase in the back of PMG.

To be exactly obedient suggests to me that a person must obey all the rules. However if repentance is a commandment, which last time I looked it was, then does that not presuppose that you have not been exactly obedient? It's a contradiction of terms. The quicker it leaves our vocabulary the better.

I agree completely. "Exact obedience" is similar to the qualifier "more better". It is a sloppy use of language and ultimately says nothing at all.

Is "exact obedience" living the letter or the spirit of the law?

If the speed limit is posted as 30 and I drive 22, am I failing to be "exactly obedient"?

If I am overweight, am I not guilty of failing to follow the WoW exactly?

"Exact obedience" = nonsense.

[teddyaware]

I agree completely. "Exact obedience" is similar to the qualifier "more better". It is a sloppy use of language and ultimately says nothing at all.

Is "exact obedience" living the letter or the spirit of the law?

If the speed limit is posted as 30 and I drive 22, am I failing to be "exactly obedient"?

If I am overweight, am I not guilty of failing to follow the WoW exactly?

"Exact obedience" = nonsense.

 

I don't understand where all of this negative "Laman and Lemuelish" thinking is coming from. It's obvious to me the mission president has caught a vision that causes him to hope the missionaries under his charge might, if they only exercise enough faith, become like the stripling Ammonite warriors of old. His idea is that if the missionaries already have enough faith to be somewhat obedient, why not take it all the way and experience the joy and success that complete faithful obedience will bring? Since the "exceedingly young" (missionary age?) stripling Ammonite warriors had obtained the same state of mind and had achieved stunning success as a consequence of their soberness and full obedience, the mission president lovingly hopes that his missionaries can experience successes and joys similar to the successes and joys experienced by Helaman's young warriors. Read for yourself and see what the mission president is helping the missionaries to strive for is not impossible:

 

18 Now behold, there were two thousand of those young men, who entered into this covenant and took their weapons of war to defend their country.

19 And now behold, as they never had hitherto been a disadvantage to the Nephites, they became now at this period of time also a great support; for they took their weapons of war, and they would that Helaman should be their leader.

20 And they were all young men, and they were exceedingly valiant for courage, and also for strength and activity; but behold, this was not all—THEY WERE MEN WHO WERE TRUE AT ALL TIMES IN WHATSOEVER THING THEY WERE ENTRUSTED.

21 Yea, they were men of truth and soberness, for they had been taught to keep the commandments of God and to walk uprightly before him. (Alma 53)

 

And for your information: this mission president's vision of great faith is now being slammed on anti-Mormon websites, and the bashing started on those sites before it came here. (I'd be interested to know how it did get here) If the anti's discover there's been lots of similar bashing going on here, it's likely there's gonna be a lot of cutting and pasting going on. They'll be able to say, "see, even the active Mormons agree with us." Congratulations. "Nonsense" indeed...

Edited May 29, 2015 by teddyaware

[Storm Rider]

Not sure what the problem with striving for exact obedience.

Nor do I see how the we can't expect the Lord to bless us for obedience

 

I agree, but it is the promised blessing that is causing concern here. D&C 130:20 would dictate there are specific laws with specific blessings.  Here the blessing - baptisms - is tied directly to obedience; the sole focus is on obedience and I see that as the problem.  Obedience, self-discipline, have specific blessings tied to their observance, but baptizing others is not one of them.  We create confusion when we misrepresent laws and their blessings.  

 

I fully agree that obedience should be taught on missions.  Too many of our youth have not had the opportunity to learn a great deal about self-discipline and need to learn its blessings.  Baptizing people, seeing them gain a testimony and observe the Spirit begin to work in their lives, is not the result of obedience, but is the work of the Spirit.  As missionaries we serve as instruments in the Lord's hands and he does the converting. Individuals make the choice to enter the waters of baptism or not; their choice has nothing to do with one's obedience to mission rules or anything else.  

 

I remain distinctly uncomfortable with the way some people present the benefits of obedience.  

Edited June 1, 2015 by Storm Rider

[rodheadlee]

I agree completely. "Exact obedience" is similar to the qualifier "more better". It is a sloppy use of language and ultimately says nothing at all.

Is "exact obedience" living the letter or the spirit of the law?

If the speed limit is posted as 30 and I drive 22, am I failing to be "exactly obedient"?

If I am overweight, am I not guilty of failing to follow the WoW exactly?

"Exact obedience" = nonsense.

If the speed limit is 30 and you're driving 22 around So Cal you'll get shot or ran off the road.

[Kenngo1969]

Not sure what the problem with striving for exact obedience.

Nor do I see how the we can't expect the Lord to bless us for obedience

I see no problem with striving for exact obedience, either.  (The key word or phrase in the preceding sentence is the sixth word, not the phrase composed of the eighth and ninth words, in case you were wondering. )  The only problems I have with the concept of exact obedience is if/when it is used as a brickbat with which someone then beats himself or someone else over the head.  While this simply may boil down to a question of semantics, I also think it's problematic to say or to imply that missionaries will be "blessed" with baptisms for their obedience.  

 

I was a District Leader and a senior companion for a short time (which was OK with me; I could do without the headaches: it got to the point where very junior DLs, ZLs, and APs (in terms of length of service: they were my file leaders, and I sustained them) would preface their counsel to me by saying, "I know you already know this, but ..." ). In the short time I was a DL, I had one of the best months on my mission ... on paper.  I'm not Pharasaical or obsessive about rules, but my junior companion didn't care about them at all.  (I'll give him the benefit of the doubt: he was A Young Grasshopper, and in some ways I probably didn't take the best approach in attempting to correct him. )

 

Missionaries are not "blessed" for their obedience in ways that abridge another person's moral agency/free will: in terms of sheer numbers, Mormon's son, Moroni, was a rotten missionary.  Insofar as the record shows, he taught no one who was converted.  And baptisms, except for the fact that, for some reason only An Omniscient Being can understand , The Lord of the Universe condescends to use 19-to-21 (now 18-to-20) year old twits as Instruments in His Hands, do not "bless" missionaries.  It's not about them.  Baptisms bless the converted.  The best thing a missionary can do to facilitate that process is to get the heck out of the way and let the Lord do His work.   

[Paddy]

If the speed limit is posted as 30 and I drive 22, am I failing to be "exactly obedient"?

....

"Exact obedience" = nonsense.

Yes. My point above was that even if you were going 32 you can repent (repentance being a commandment) hence to repent which is a requirement for exact obedience presupposes that you where not exactly obedient.

Put another way, if you were exactly obedient you would not need to repent which is a requirement to be exactly obedient. . You could argue that if you were exactly obedient then you would be exempt from repentance but that has no basis in reality, hence the contradiction in the phrase "exact obedience". The closest we should strive for is the commandment to "be perfect even as your father in heaven is perfect" and rely on moroni's promise to be "perfect in Christ". The concept of exact obedience is just a bad buzz phrase. It has to go.

[bcuzbcuz]

I see no problem with striving for exact obedience, either.  (The key word or phrase in the preceding sentence is the sixth word, not the phrase composed of the eighth and ninth words, in case you were wondering. )  The only problems I have with the concept of exact obedience is if/when it is used as a brickbat with which someone then beats himself or someone else over the head.  While this simply may boil down to a question of semantics, I also think it's problematic to say or to imply that missionaries will be "blessed" with baptisms for their obedience.  

 

I was a District Leader and a senior companion for a short time (which was OK with me; I could do without the headaches: it got to the point where very junior DLs, ZLs, and APs (in terms of length of service: they were my file leaders, and I sustained them) would preface their counsel to me by saying, "I know you already know this, but ..." ). In the short time I was a DL, I had one of the best months on my mission ... on paper.  I'm not Pharasaical or obsessive about rules, but my junior companion didn't care about them at all.  (I'll give him the benefit of the doubt: he was A Young Grasshopper, and in some ways I probably didn't take the best approach in attempting to correct him. )

 

Missionaries are not "blessed" for their obedience in ways that abridge another person's moral agency/free will: in terms of sheer numbers, Mormon's son, Moroni, was a rotten missionary.  Insofar as the record shows, he taught no one who was converted.  And baptisms, except for the fact that, for some reason only An Omniscient Being can understand , The Lord of the Universe condescends to use 19-to-21 (now 18-to-20) year old twits as Instruments in His Hands, do not "bless" missionaries.  It's not about them.  Baptisms bless the converted.  The best thing a missionary can do to facilitate that process is to get the heck out of the way and let the Lord do His work.

I agree. My absolute favourite companion, who was quick witted, devoted, knowledgable and very spiritual, never had a baptism on his mission. He was my ideal of how a devoted missionary should be, and yet, according to this "Exact obedience" nonsense, he should have been blessed with baptism success. But he wasn't. I know he was extremely disappointed that his 2 1/2 year mission didn't result in any baptisms. Especially since I, a mere shadow of him, raked in the numbers. Baptism numbers have nothing to do with "exact obedience".

[HappyJackWagon]

I agree. My absolute favourite companion, who was quick witted, devoted, knowledgable and very spiritual, never had a baptism on his mission. He was my ideal of how a devoted missionary should be, and yet, according to this "Exact obedience" nonsense, he should have been blessed with baptism success. But he wasn't. I know he was extremely disappointed that his 2 1/2 year mission didn't result in any baptisms. Especially since I, a mere shadow of him, raked in the numbers. Baptism numbers have nothing to do with "exact obedience".

The whole "Exact Obedience" will result in baptisms line of thinking is indicative of the larger problem in the church of people making promises for God that they have no business making. We see this all the time. Mission Presidents "PROMISE" results if their missionaries are obedient, or a prophet will "PROMISE" that if you read the book of Mormon daily with your family none will ever go astray, or a Bishop "Promises" that your son will receive the M Preisthood and be sealed in the temple if he earns his Eagle Scout. We like to make promises that we can't keep.

[cinepro]

I don't understand where all of this negative "Laman and Lemuelish" thinking is coming from. It's obvious to me the mission president has caught a vision that causes him to hope the missionaries under his charge might, if they only exercise enough faith, become like the stripling Ammonite warriors of old. His idea is that if the missionaries already have enough faith to be somewhat obedient, why not take it all the way and experience the joy and success that complete faithful obedience will bring? Since the "exceedingly young" (missionary age?) stripling Ammonite warriors had obtained the same state of mind and had achieved stunning success as a consequence of their soberness and full obedience, the mission president lovingly hopes that his missionaries can experience successes and joys similar to the successes and joys experienced by Helaman's young warriors. Read for yourself and see what the mission president is helping the missionaries to strive for is not impossible:

 

18 Now behold, there were two thousand of those young men, who entered into this covenant and took their weapons of war to defend their country.

19 And now behold, as they never had hitherto been a disadvantage to the Nephites, they became now at this period of time also a great support; for they took their weapons of war, and they would that Helaman should be their leader.

20 And they were all young men, and they were exceedingly valiant for courage, and also for strength and activity; but behold, this was not all—THEY WERE MEN WHO WERE TRUE AT ALL TIMES IN WHATSOEVER THING THEY WERE ENTRUSTED.

21 Yea, they were men of truth and soberness, for they had been taught to keep the commandments of God and to walk uprightly before him. (Alma 53)

 

And for your information: this mission president's vision of great faith is now being slammed on anti-Mormon websites, and the bashing started on those sites before it came here. (I'd be interested to know how it did get here) If the anti's discover there's been lots of similar bashing going on here, it's likely there's gonna be a lot of cutting and pasting going on. They'll be able to say, "see, even the active Mormons agree with us." Congratulations. "Nonsense" indeed...

 

Unlike so many other things in the Church, the claim that "Exact Obedience" = "Baptisms" is a falsifiable one.  And as others have already pointed out, it was not the case on their missions. 

 

It would be great if the MP would create a control group by splitting the mission in half and having half the missionaries focus on "Exact Obedience" and the other half to just be normal, but that's probably too much to ask for.  It's also possible that the mission could have a surge of baptisms unrelated to the obedience of the missionaries and it could be wrongly attributed to the Exact Obedience. 

 

The problem is that teachings and programs like this aren't free.  In making such promises, there is a potential psychological cost to the missionaries (and the MP) depending on the outcome of the experiment.  So we should recognize the potential cost, and ask ourselves if we are taking this risk based on true principles of the gospel. 

 

In this case, the wording of the promises (and especially the direct link to a specific number of baptisms, which we should remember is supposed to be a lifetime commitment made by an investigator)  does not seem to follow the gospel pattern, even the one set forth in the Preach My Gospel Manual.  Recognizing this isn't cynicism or a lack of faith, it's just a simple observation and understanding of gospel principles as taught by the Church itself.

 

As for the Stripling Warrior example, I suspect that there may be some exaggeration in the reporting of their exactness, with some good ol' ancient hyperbole mixed in with the otherwise impartial and accurately reported account of their worthiness.  We'll never know, but I'm not sure I'd base a promise to an entire mission on that one story.

[cinepro]

I don't understand where all of this negative "Laman and Lemuelish" thinking is coming from. It's obvious to me the mission president has caught a vision that causes him to hope the missionaries under his charge might, if they only exercise enough faith, become like the stripling Ammonite warriors of old. His idea is that if the missionaries already have enough faith to be somewhat obedient, why not take it all the way and experience the joy and success that complete faithful obedience will bring? Since the "exceedingly young" (missionary age?) stripling Ammonite warriors had obtained the same state of mind and had achieved stunning success as a consequence of their soberness and full obedience, the mission president lovingly hopes that his missionaries can experience successes and joys similar to the successes and joys experienced by Helaman's young warriors. Read for yourself and see what the mission president is helping the missionaries to strive for is not impossible:

 

18 Now behold, there were two thousand of those young men, who entered into this covenant and took their weapons of war to defend their country.

19 And now behold, as they never had hitherto been a disadvantage to the Nephites, they became now at this period of time also a great support; for they took their weapons of war, and they would that Helaman should be their leader.

20 And they were all young men, and they were exceedingly valiant for courage, and also for strength and activity; but behold, this was not all—THEY WERE MEN WHO WERE TRUE AT ALL TIMES IN WHATSOEVER THING THEY WERE ENTRUSTED.

21 Yea, they were men of truth and soberness, for they had been taught to keep the commandments of God and to walk uprightly before him. (Alma 53)

 

And for your information: this mission president's vision of great faith is now being slammed on anti-Mormon websites, and the bashing started on those sites before it came here. (I'd be interested to know how it did get here) If the anti's discover there's been lots of similar bashing going on here, it's likely there's gonna be a lot of cutting and pasting going on. They'll be able to say, "see, even the active Mormons agree with us." Congratulations. "Nonsense" indeed...

 

Unlike so many other things in the Church, the claim that "Exact Obedience" = "Baptisms" is a falsifiable one.  And as others have already pointed out, it was not the case on their missions. 

 

It would be great if the MP would create a control group by splitting the mission in half and having half the missionaries focus on "Exact Obedience" and the other half to just be normal, but that's probably too much to ask for.  It's also possible that the mission could have a surge of baptisms unrelated to the obedience of the missionaries and it could be wrongly attributed to the Exact Obedience. 

 

The problem is that teachings and programs like this aren't free.  In making such promises, there is a potential psychological cost to the missionaries (and the MP) depending on the outcome of the experiment.  So we should recognize the potential cost, and ask ourselves if we are taking this risk based on true principles of the gospel. 

 

In this case, the wording of the promises (and especially the direct link to a specific number of baptisms, which we should remember is supposed to be a lifetime commitment made by an investigator)  does not seem to follow the gospel pattern, even the one set forth in the Preach My Gospel Manual.  Recognizing this isn't cynicism or a lack of faith, it's just a simple observation and understanding of gospel principles as taught by the Church itself.

 

As for the Stripling Warrior example, I suspect that there may be some exaggeration in the reporting of their exactness, with some good ol' ancient hyperbole mixed in with the otherwise impartial and accurately reported account of their worthiness.  We'll never know, but I'm not sure I'd base a promise to an entire mission on that one story.