Husbands leaving family for a mission in early days

[Sanpitch]

On Sundays I often like to listen to Manti radio and "Sounds of Sunday".  Hymns that I don't usually care about however they are sometimes done instrumentally and are beautiful, most any hymns or other classical piece, especially the guitars.  However as the "Spoken Word" came on the talk was about a father with the family name of Scofield.  They were beginning the trek to Utah soon after Brigham Young's group had left.  At some point Scofield was called or at least felt he should go on a mission and leave the family to fend for themselves to make the journey to the SL Valley.  I don't understand that at all, it seems disgusting to leave the family for probably two years, I don't really know all the details, I would like to though.

My grandmother, with two small kids, had her husband called on a mission in similar circumstances in about 1910, had no support but friends and family to see them through the ordeal.  She was established in Utah however. 

WHY!

Edited June 26, 2016 by Sanpitch

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Sanpitch said:

On Sundays I often like to listen to Manti radio and "Sounds of Sunday".  Hymns that I don't usually care about however they are sometimes done instrumentally and are beautiful, most any hymns or other classical piece, especially the guitars.  However as the "Spoken Word" came on the talk was about a father with the family name of Scofield.  They were beginning the trek to Utah soon after Brigham Young's group had left.  At some point Scofield was called or at least felt he should go on a mission and leave the family to fend for themselves to make the journey to the SL Valley.  I don't understand that at all, it seems disgusting to leave the family for probably two years, I don't really know all the details, I would like to though.

My grandmother, with two small kids, had her husband called on a mission in similar circumstances in about 1910, had no support but friends and family to see them through the ordeal.  She was established in Utah however. 

WHY!

https://www.lds.org/manual/church-history-in-the-fulness-of-times-student-manual/chapter-eighteen-the-mission-of-the-twelve?lang=eng

Read about the situation with Brigham Young leaving his wife, who had just given birth and how he was really sick but going anyway.  The answer I think, is because there were no others to go and be that example, the Twelve had to go first.  And the church was so new, they didn't have many18 year olds to go out. Also, the church requires missionary work and it's part of the gospel, it's part of the creed.  https://www.mormon.org/values/missionary-work

Edited June 26, 2016 by Tacenda

[Sanpitch]

9 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

https://www.lds.org/manual/church-history-in-the-fulness-of-times-student-manual/chapter-eighteen-the-mission-of-the-twelve?lang=eng

Read about the situation with Brigham Young leaving his wife, who had just given birth and how he was really sick but going anyway.  The answer I think, is because there were no others to go and be that example, the Twelve had to go first.  And the church was so new, they didn't have 18 year olds to go out. Also, the church requires missionary work and it's part of the gospel, it's part of the creed.  https://www.mormon.org/values/missionary-work

Hi Tacenda.  I thought that the family had a little bit of priority also.  I know that was the custom in those days and it happened often.  Could it have been possible to have another Joseph Smith type start the same gospel in England and other European countries or actually all around the world rather than split up the families?  In any case I don't agree with the arrangement.

[Storm Rider]

This has always been rather simple for me to understand, but I recognize that many trip over it and create a great number of problems accepting the concept of sacrifice in serving God.  

Before Christ left the first apostles he called them to meet him on a mountain (Matt 28:16-20).  There he have them what has been recognized as The Great Commission:  "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you...

When the Church teaches members about priorities it teaches our first priority is to God.  There are several lists of priorities taught by different individuals.  One taught the three great loyalties were God, Family, Country; others have taught God, family, job, church, and there are others.  Regardless of whatever one's own personal list looks like our first commitment is always to God.  Our eye is single to his glory and all things we do should be through that perspective.

If we are people of faith and we are asked to serve, then we serve placing our family in God's care knowing that the will of God will be done.  This is no easy venture and it demands a degree of humility that few possess.  Children will die, families, men, women - each of those involved in this service will sacrifice and know hardship.  

Is it worth it to serve God?  That is for the disciple of Jesus Christ to determine.  

[Tacenda]

5 minutes ago, Sanpitch said:

Hi Tacenda.  I thought that the family had a little bit of priority also.  I know that was the custom in those days and it happened often.  Could it have been possible to have another Joseph Smith type start the same gospel in England and other European countries or actually all around the world rather than split up the families?  In any case I don't agree with the arrangement.

I agree, with your disagreement!

I think they at first wanted members to move to Utah, or Zion.  But later on had the members stay in their homelands to start the churches there.  It would be interesting to find out when they discontinued the practice of sending family men on missions.

Currently, they send Senior Missionaries.  I believe the church puts a little pressure on them to go, I could find quotes in General Conferences about this.  I see that several go on many missions, and may be missing a lot of things with their own families, and also spending much of their retirement money to go on these missions. This is my opinion, I've seen it in my own family.  

Edited June 26, 2016 by Tacenda

[JLHPROF]

Matthew 10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.

Luke 14:16 Then said he unto him, A certain man made a great supper, and bade many:
17 And sent his servant at supper time to say to them that were bidden, Come; for all things are now ready.
18 And they all with one consent began to make excuse. The first said unto him, I have bought a piece of ground, and I must needs go and see it: I pray thee have me excused.
19 And another said, I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I go to prove them: I pray thee have me excused.
20 And another said, I have married a wife, and therefore I cannot come.
21 So that servant came, and shewed his lord these things. Then the master of the house being angry said to his servant, Go out quickly into the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in hither the poor, and the maimed, and the halt, and the blind.
22 And the servant said, Lord, it is done as thou hast commanded, and yet there is room.
23 And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled.
24 For I say unto you, That none of those men which were bidden shall taste of my supper.
25 ¶And there went great multitudes with him: and he turned, and said unto them,
26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
27 And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.
...33 So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.

[Sanpitch]

"Matthew 10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me."

Maybe that's part of the reason I can't take religion very seriously.
 

[Tacenda]

36 minutes ago, Sanpitch said:

"Matthew 10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me."

Maybe that's part of the reason I can't take religion very seriously.
 

When is not going on a mission, not loving Jesus?  I think there is more to this than serving a mission out in the field.  There are many ways to love Jesus in our daily lives that serve that purpose. Also, why do missionaries still try convert other Christians?  But I already know the answer.  We are adding on to what they already have apparently.  

[Storm Rider]

46 minutes ago, Sanpitch said:

"Matthew 10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me."

Maybe that's part of the reason I can't take religion very seriously.
 

That is one of the great things about it - no one forces you to choose to be a disciple.  It is strictly voluntary.  It sounds like you know your own path and are more than comfortable.  As long as you are happy then we are all happy for you.  Good luck.

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, Sanpitch said:

On Sundays I often like to listen to Manti radio and "Sounds of Sunday".  Hymns that I don't usually care about however they are sometimes done instrumentally and are beautiful, most any hymns or other classical piece, especially the guitars.  However as the "Spoken Word" came on the talk was about a father with the family name of Scofield.  They were beginning the trek to Utah soon after Brigham Young's group had left.  At some point Scofield was called or at least felt he should go on a mission and leave the family to fend for themselves to make the journey to the SL Valley.  I don't understand that at all, it seems disgusting to leave the family for probably two years, I don't really know all the details, I would like to though.

My grandmother, with two small kids, had her husband called on a mission in similar circumstances in about 1910, had no support but friends and family to see them through the ordeal.  She was established in Utah however. 

WHY!

Maybe because the church did not follow the commandments:

Doctrine and Covenants 75:24

24 Behold, I say unto you, that it is the duty of the church to assist in supporting the families of those, and also to support the families of those who are called and must needs be sent unto the world to proclaim the gospel unto the world.
Doctrine and Covenants 75:26

26 And let all such as can obtain places for their families, and support of the church for them, not fail to go into the world, whether to the east or to the west, or to the north, or to the south.

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, Sanpitch said:

"Matthew 10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me."Meeti

Maybe that's part of the reason I can't take religion very seriously.
 

And yet..families are forever.. for some mormon families I know..they are still waiting for forever.  One doesn't have to go on a mission to leave a family.  A girlfriend of mine once stated that she does not know her father.  Meetings..Bishopric for years..stake presidencies and just as things settled down..off to a senior mission.  She used to think it was great that my Dad sat down to dinner.  Somewhere..there has to be a balance to serve God..and family.  To serve both..equally.

[VideoGameJunkie]

Didn't Joseph Smith marry some wives whose husbands were sent on missions?

[CV75]

6 hours ago, Sanpitch said:

"Matthew 10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me."

Maybe that's part of the reason I can't take religion very seriously.
 

Which came first, your not taking religion seriously, of this as a reason not to? What is your foundational reason for not taking religion seriously?

[JLHPROF]

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

When is not going on a mission, not loving Jesus?

When Jesus has a mission for you and you refuse for any reason.

6 hours ago, Sanpitch said:

Maybe that's part of the reason I can't take religion very seriously.

Because God comes first?  I fail to see why that is an issue.

[Sanpitch]

17 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Which came first, your not taking religion seriously, of this as a reason not to? What is your foundational reason for not taking religion seriously?

My main reason for not taking religion seriously is because it does not make sense to me.  And from above, "Because God comes first?  I fail to see why that is an issue. "  God does not talk to me, maybe he does to you.  I can't take anything filtered through someone else along the line of communication.   Added:  That's why we have a hundred thousand different faith on Earth, people listening and believing what someone else has told them. 

Edited June 27, 2016 by Sanpitch
addition

[CV75]

12 hours ago, Sanpitch said:

My main reason for not taking religion seriously is because it does not make sense to me.

So in the big scheme of things, what's the big deal about sending out missionaries; why focus on that?

[Sanpitch]

22 minutes ago, CV75 said:

So in the big scheme of things, what's the big deal about sending out missionaries; why focus on that?

What's the big deal about deserting families as the travel into the wilderness on their own without a husband and father's help and support?  I don't think I need to explain that.  If the reason husbands left was not for religious reasons he could be charged by the law with desertion.

[CV75]

6 minutes ago, Sanpitch said:

What's the big deal about deserting families as the travel into the wilderness on their own without a husband and father's help and support?  I don't think I need to explain that.  If the reason husbands left was not for religious reasons he could be charged by the law with desertion.

Yes, I think you do need to explain why, if religion doesn't make sense to you, you would expect a religiously motivated effort to!

[Sanpitch]

18 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Yes, I think you do need to explain why, if religion doesn't make sense to you, you would expect a religiously motivated effort to!

I don't understand your statement at all.  "you would expect a religiously motivated effort to!"  ?

[stemelbow]

I have a brother whose left his family quite a few times in his relatively young life.  But he always brings back experience and example, I guess.  He's in the military and has been deployed a few times.  His wife has gotten stronger and gained confidence, now she runs a business.  He's never treated family like they aren't a priority, but he also knows sometimes others come first even if it feels like leaving his family is a bad thing.  His family is always safe even if it's a struggle for all. 

I think going on a mission for men in the 19th century could have resulted in a net positive for the families.  Considering the ineffectiveness of missionary work these days it might be wise to send out fathers again.  My comment on the ineffectiveness is considering the staggeringly low growth rate in recent years even with the huge influx of missionaries. 

[Sanpitch]

32 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I have a brother whose left his family quite a few times in his relatively young life.  But he always brings back experience and example, I guess.  He's in the military and has been deployed a few times.  His wife has gotten stronger and gained confidence, now she runs a business.  He's never treated family like they aren't a priority, but he also knows sometimes others come first even if it feels like leaving his family is a bad thing.  His family is always safe even if it's a struggle for all. 

I think going on a mission for men in the 19th century could have resulted in a net positive for the families.  Considering the ineffectiveness of missionary work these days it might be wise to send out fathers again.  My comment on the ineffectiveness is considering the staggeringly low growth rate in recent years even with the huge influx of missionaries. 

I have a strong attachment to wife.  I was drafted and sent to Japan many years ago.  I spent $8,000 - $9,000 in todays dollars to get wife over there and back.  I had no rank so it was all on my own resources and we were poor.  It was the best investment I ever made.  I don't understand the leaving wife and kids by choice whether for religious reasons or otherwise.  Apparently others feel different.

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, Sanpitch said:

I have a strong attachment to wife.  I was drafted and sent to Japan many years ago.  I spent $8,000 - $9,000 in todays dollars to get wife over there and back.  I had no rank so it was all on my own resources and we were poor.  It was the best investment I ever made.  I don't understand the leaving wife and kids by choice whether for religious reasons or otherwise.  Apparently others feel different.

I think it's true the message of the Church today is not near important enough to send out parents.  Until we understand that and refine what we have, I'm all for the status quo, anyway.  And if we refine it and make it all the more important and better, we'll probably be fine with the sending out teenagers for the most part and make them do it.  We'd certainly be better than where we are. 

Man, when people feel the call to do things, as strong as it can come, some might not call it much of a choice when they want to spread the cause of good.  Complain to Joseph Smith for setting the precedent, though.  He left his wife and kids a ton in the short life he lived. 

[Rain]

19 hours ago, Jeanne said:

And yet..families are forever.. for some mormon families I know..they are still waiting for forever.  One doesn't have to go on a mission to leave a family.  A girlfriend of mine once stated that she does not know her father.  Meetings..Bishopric for years..stake presidencies and just as things settled down..off to a senior mission.  She used to think it was great that my Dad sat down to dinner.  Somewhere..there has to be a balance to serve God..and family.  To serve both..equally.

My personal opinion is we put God only, but we must remember that church work is something He wants us to do,  taking care of and loving family is something He wants us to do,  providing for family is something He wants us to do,  taking care of ourselves is something He wants us to do (filling our cup etc). 

So sometimes the number one thing in putting Him first is sitting and hugging your child. Sometimes it is being at work. Sometimes going bowling. Sometimes conducting a funeral. Putting God first or only doesn't mean only doing church things. I think some miss that. It means counseling with God to find out which area He wants you to concentrate now. 

__________________

I cannot imagine how hard it would have been for these families,  but I do know that in one period of our lives that my husband had to be away from home,  traveling for work an awful lot.  Several times we prayed over whether he should find other work, but felt peace staying where he was.  

During one several months period after a couple of years of travel I felt such peace and strength - something I had never felt before.  I felt like I was floating, being carried. 

I know it had to have been tough for these families, but from experience I know that the Lord helps us in different ways so I figure that when men put God first and go on a mission He is there for them as well. 

Edited June 27, 2016 by Rain

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Sanpitch said:

I don't understand your statement at all.  "you would expect a religiously motivated effort to!"  ?

Let's try again: Yes, I think you do need to explain why LDS missionary practice in the 19th century is a big deal to you, if religion doesn't make sense to you in the first place. In other words, if religion doesn't make sense to you, why would you expect any religiously motivated effort to?

[Sanpitch]

5 hours ago, CV75 said:

Let's try again: Yes, I think you do need to explain why LDS missionary practice in the 19th century is a big deal to you, if religion doesn't make sense to you in the first place. In other words, if religion doesn't make sense to you, why would you expect any religiously motivated effort to?

I'll answer the best I can with what I think you're getting at.  The missionary practice does make a difference to me because it very much affected my grandmother and my mother and her siblings.  After husband - father came home from his mission his farm  and a start of a sheep herd had been sold to support the family.  So he started from scratch by herding sheep for others and was 70 miles away so rarely home.  Maybe unrelated but he was kicked in the face by a horse on his way back to the herd and died of infection.  Family survived the best they could but very poor.  Grandmother spent most of her life single, mom was 14 yrs old when she lost her father which she hardly know because he was mostly gone somewhere else.  My wife's granddad has a similar story of getting married and called on a mission.

Edited June 27, 2016 by Sanpitch