NEW LEAK: As if Pressure to Go on a Mission isn't Intence Enough Already

[Johnnie Cake]

In one of the new leaks (I don't think I can provide a link to them)  a letter from  the Northern Utah Area Authorities,  which consist of 3 GA's tells the stake presidents to increase the number of missionaries serving by having the bishops tell the prospective missionaries that the Bishop has already received confirmation from God that the prospective missionary should serve. What the heck? Are you kidding me? Talk about manipulation.

I'm sorry but this left a  clot in my throat. As if there isn't already enough pressure both societal and from the expectation that all serve in the church now the Bishops is to add additional pressure that the Bishop has received revelation that the young man is to serve?   This is so manipulative in my humble opinion.

Why can't the prospective missionary just make a decision on their own as to whether or not a mission is for them without this added pressure to do so...isn't  it rough enough without this added pressure..

Sorry but content of this leak pissed me off...What about personal freedoms.  What happens if the young man has already received personal revelation that he shouldn't service a mission but instead finish university or continue his promising music career or his NFL football career...this only adds to the guilt and humiliation of NOT serving a mission in my opinion.

 

Edited February 1, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[Tacenda]

Aha! I knew this was the case. In another thread this was discussed and it was mentioned that it didn't happen. But I could remember it happening. In fact I vaguely remember a couple in a ward I lived in that were called to go on a mission, and I don't think they were ready to.

Edited February 1, 2017 by Tacenda

[bluebell]

Can you provide a quote?  

Since it is doctrine (and openly and frequently taught) in the church right now that it is every young man's responsibility to serve a mission and that God wants every young man to go who can, i'm not really seeing how a bishop telling someone that God wants them to serve should be that surprising.  That's why i'd like to see what was actually said.

[Tacenda]

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Can you provide a quote?  

Since it is doctrine (and openly and frequently taught) in the church right now that it is every young man's responsibility to serve a mission and that God wants every young man to go who can, i'm not really seeing how a bishop telling someone that God wants them to serve should be that surprising.  That's why i'd like to see what was actually said.

I read the link, it's on the Mormondiscussions board. It mentions that stake presidencies and bishoprics should feel inspired through prayer about couples and young men, and ask them to prepare to go by a given date.

Edited February 1, 2017 by Tacenda

[Duncan]

No offense but stuff from 2000? who keep that stuff around anymore?! some ex mormon hoarder?! One of the leaks was about phone calls home. When my brother served in LA in the early '90's he told us they weren't allowed to phone home. So, we never heard from him in two years beyond his letters. Years later one of our family ran into someone who also served there then and asked him about that rule. Turns out there was no such rule!!! my dopey brother just didn't want to phone home, would you believe such a thing!

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I read the link, it's on the Mormondiscussions board. It mentions that stake presidents and bishops should feel inspired about senior couples too. And then ask them to go. 

I'm not doubting your and Johnny's account so much as just recognizing that different people can hear or read the same thing and come away with completely different ideas of what was actually said.  (This board is a perfect illustration of that).

If possible i'd like to read the relevant part for myself.

[Tacenda]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm not doubting your and Johnny's account so much as just recognizing that different people can hear or read the same thing and come away with completely different ideas of what was actually said.  (This board is a perfect illustration of that).

If possible i'd like to read the relevant part for myself.

Let me know what you think, if you go to the so-called trailer park and read there. I'm not a member and can read it. It's usually there that you can see the leaks, or exmormon reddit. I edited my post to reflect it better. 

[Jeanne]

Just now, Tacenda said:

Let me know what you think, if you go to the so-called trailer park and read there. I'm not a member and can read it. It's usually there that you can see the leaks, or exmormon reddit. I edited my post to reflect it better. 

I read it earlier as it is also on other sights.  It is real..and it is as I always thought it was...so much for free agency.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

Let me know what you think, if you go to the so-called trailer park and read there. I'm not a member and can read it. It's usually there that you can see the leaks, or exmormon reddit. I edited my post to reflect it better. 

So, the counsel is that bishops should pray about who should serve a mission?

[Jeanne]

Just now, bluebell said:

So, the counsel is that bishops should pray about who should serve a mission?

No..it is more like before you call someone in for a mission..make sure you have it confirmed by inspiration and tell them that.  Have you ever had a Bishop or heard of a Bishop that said.."I am sorry but I just don't think the Lord wants you to go"....

[CMZ]

19 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Can you provide a quote?  

Since it is doctrine (and openly and frequently taught) in the church right now that it is every young man's responsibility to serve a mission and that God wants every young man to go who can

Yes, it's tantamount to there being an individual revelation to each male. Millions have gone on missions and come home and been able to successfully return to career, university, etc. "Free agency" (which is not actually a scriptural term) still remains.

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I read the link, it's on the Mormondiscussions board. It mentions that stake presidencies and bishoprics should feel inspired through prayer about couples and young men, and ask them to prepare to go by a given date.

Well if it is on Mormon Discussions board...it must be wrong.  

[JLHPROF]

As per Nemesis's pinned instructions:
1. Discuss the information in the leak only. 
2. Discussions that delve into the speculation will be cut off.
3. Once the discussion turns circular and rehashing of the same thing over and over again it will also be closed.

The supposed offending statement recommends that these Bishops instead of asking them whether or not they'd like to serve a mission, should have already had a confirmation in prayer so that he can issue a call to them in the name of the Lord to prepare to be worthy to serve a mission on a given date.

So the apparent offense comes from Bishops praying about who ought to be preparing to serve a mission and letting the youth member know instead of letting the youth make the decision and bring it to the Bishop.

I know we don't like the idea of young people being pressured or guilted in to serving a mission, but this is hardly sinister.
In the early days you got called from the pulpit with little advance notice.  It's no coincidence that the people who find this to be sinister are those who doubt mission calls come from the Lord.

So let's assume shall we for the sake of argument that everyone who is actually involved (the Bishop, the GA's, the youth, and the youth's parents) all believe as part of their testimony that mission calls come from the Lord.  Is this still a problem for anyone except those who don't believe that?







 

[JLHPROF]

15 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Let me know what you think, if you go to the so-called trailer park and read there.

An apt description.

5 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Well if it is on Mormon Discussions board...it must be wrong.

Even a clock that has stopped progressing is right twice a day. 

[Tacenda]

39 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

As per Nemesis's pinned instructions:
1. Discuss the information in the leak only. 
2. Discussions that delve into the speculation will be cut off.
3. Once the discussion turns circular and rehashing of the same thing over and over again it will also be closed.

The supposed offending statement recommends that these Bishops instead of asking them whether or not they'd like to serve a mission, should have already had a confirmation in prayer so that he can issue a call to them in the name of the Lord to prepare to be worthy to serve a mission on a given date.

So the apparent offense comes from Bishops praying about who ought to be preparing to serve a mission and letting the youth member know instead of letting the youth make the decision and bring it to the Bishop.

I know we don't like the idea of young people being pressured or guilted in to serving a mission, but this is hardly sinister.
In the early days you got called from the pulpit with little advance notice.  It's no coincidence that the people who find this to be sinister are those who doubt mission calls come from the Lord.

So let's assume shall we for the sake of argument that everyone who is actually involved (the Bishop, the GA's, the youth, and the youth's parents) all believe as part of their testimony that mission calls come from the Lord.  Is this still a problem for anyone except those who don't believe that?







 

Thanks for a better description than I gave bluebell. There is a small problem, if the leaders say the Lord said they needed to go, what if that leader is wrong about that inspiration? And the couple or young man/woman, wasn't entirely ready to go, and it proves to be a mistake? And isn't that a little too much pressure? 

If I'm remembering right, a few years ago my second son was probably told this over and over, no wonder he got so upset. He had the bishop and his young men's leaders pressuring him all the time. He got so upset that he cried, and hit his head or fist in the wall. 

 

Edited February 1, 2017 by Tacenda

[Buckeye]

14 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

As per Nemesis's pinned instructions:
1. Discuss the information in the leak only. 
2. Discussions that delve into the speculation will be cut off.
3. Once the discussion turns circular and rehashing of the same thing over and over again it will also be closed.

The supposed offending statement recommends that these Bishops instead of asking them whether or not they'd like to serve a mission, should have already had a confirmation in prayer so that he can issue a call to them in the name of the Lord to prepare to be worthy to serve a mission on a given date.

So the apparent offense comes from Bishops praying about who ought to be preparing to serve a mission and letting the youth member know instead of letting the youth make the decision and bring it to the Bishop.

I know we don't like the idea of young people being pressured or guilted in to serving a mission, but this is hardly sinister.
In the early days you got called from the pulpit with little advance notice.  It's no coincidence that the people who find this to be sinister are those who doubt mission calls come from the Lord.

So let's assume shall we for the sake of argument that everyone who is actually involved (the Bishop, the GA's, the youth, and the youth's parents) all believe as part of their testimony that mission calls come from the Lord.  Is this still a problem for anyone except those who don't believe that?







 

I see two problems. First is that bishops are pressured to get a confirmation of the call. The instruction doesn't just tell bishops to inquire ahead of the meeting and if prompted, speak to their confirmation. Instead, it presumes that any bishop who asks will get a confirmation that the youth/couple is to serve. That's too presumptuous for my likes. 

Second, this takes the right to revelation away from the youth/couple and instead gives the bishop the right to revelation for whether and when they should serve. That's not my understanding of how revelation works. The church gets revelation for where to send someone and how to run missions. But the person himself gets the revelation on whether to serve and when to do so  

To put this in another context, imagine if your bishop told you he'd received revelation that you were to get married by x date. Or he called in a couple who is dating and said he'd received revelation that they were to married. Most members would say that such claims are outside his stewardship. IMO, so is this claim to revelation about missionary service. 

[bcuzbcuz]

26 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

As per Nemesis's pinned instructions:
1. Discuss the information in the leak only. 
2. Discussions that delve into the speculation will be cut off.
3. Once the discussion turns circular and rehashing of the same thing over and over again it will also be closed.

The supposed offending statement recommends that these Bishops instead of asking them whether or not they'd like to serve a mission, should have already had a confirmation in prayer so that he can issue a call to them in the name of the Lord to prepare to be worthy to serve a mission on a given date.

So the apparent offense comes from Bishops praying about who ought to be preparing to serve a mission and letting the youth member know instead of letting the youth make the decision and bring it to the Bishop.

I know we don't like the idea of young people being pressured or guilted in to serving a mission, but this is hardly sinister.
In the early days you got called from the pulpit with little advance notice.  It's no coincidence that the people who find this to be sinister are those who doubt mission calls come from the Lord.

So let's assume shall we for the sake of argument that everyone who is actually involved (the Bishop, the GA's, the youth, and the youth's parents) all believe as part of their testimony that mission calls come from the Lord.  Is this still a problem for anyone except those who don't believe that?







 

I met the mother to my six children while serving my mission. Both she and I thought my calling was inspired.

My first mission president's calling being inspired? Not so much. 

[bluebell]

42 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

No..it is more like before you call someone in for a mission..make sure you have it confirmed by inspiration and tell them that.  Have you ever had a Bishop or heard of a Bishop that said.."I am sorry but I just don't think the Lord wants you to go"....

I don't understand. Why would you, tacenda, and Johnny be upset that bishops were told to tell people (truthfully) that they had received confirmation from the Holy Ghost that they should serve?

 

 

 

[CA Steve]

My parents were encouraged to go on their second mission about this time by a bishop who approached them with, "I feel inspired that God wants you to go on another mission". They were not considering a second mission but felt that the bishop must be inspired, so they went. Dad's health took a serious turn for the worse in a foreign country and we almost lost him. They came back only a few months after entering the field. It would be disturbing to me to learn that this mission call was driven by leadership instructions to bishops to get inspiration for members to go on missions.

 

 

[Tacenda]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't understand. Why would you, tacenda, and Johnny be upset that bishops were told to tell people (truthfully) that they had received confirmation from the Holy Ghost that they should serve?

 

 

 

Read my post, CA Steve's and Buckeye's for examples of why. The leaders are not always inspired for real, but think they are. Just like all callings aren't inspired.

[emeliza]

I have to admit I am really confused.  Isn't this similar to extending a calling.  Bishop prays and feels inspired to put you in a position via a calling and the person than has the opportunity to think and pray on it as well?  

I feel I am missing something. 

[Johnnie Cake]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Can you provide a quote?  

Since it is doctrine (and openly and frequently taught) in the church right now that it is every young man's responsibility to serve a mission and that God wants every young man to go who can, i'm not really seeing how a bishop telling someone that God wants them to serve should be that surprising.  That's why i'd like to see what was actually said.

Quote

Instead of asking them whether or not they'd like to serve a mission, the bishop should have already had a confirmation in prayer so that he can issue a call to them in the name of the Lord to prepare to be worthy to serve a mission on a given date. - Utah Area Authority

I can't even imagine a bishop getting a confirmation that a fit, healthy morally clean young man should not go on a mission...

Edited February 1, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[The Nehor]

Getting revelation that someone should prepare to go seems like a good thing to me. Not seeing a scandal here.

25 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

I see two problems. First is that bishops are pressured to get a confirmation of the call. The instruction doesn't just tell bishops to inquire ahead of the meeting and if prompted, speak to their confirmation. Instead, it presumes that any bishop who asks will get a confirmation that the youth/couple is to serve. That's too presumptuous for my likes. 

Second, this takes the right to revelation away from the youth/couple and instead gives the bishop the right to revelation for whether and when they should serve. That's not my understanding of how revelation works. The church gets revelation for where to send someone and how to run missions. But the person himself gets the revelation on whether to serve and when to do so  

To put this in another context, imagine if your bishop told you he'd received revelation that you were to get married by x date. Or he called in a couple who is dating and said he'd received revelation that they were to married. Most members would say that such claims are outside his stewardship. IMO, so is this claim to revelation about missionary service. 

If they do not get the revelation they should not extend the call.

Second, calling a young man or couple to service and receiving revelation about it is within a bishop's stewardship.

Telling people to marry is not within his stewardship (though counseling about it is) so not sure how this analogy applies.

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I can't even imagine a bishop getting a confirmation that a fit, healthy morally clean young man should not go on a mission...

I can.

[Buckeye]

6 minutes ago, emeliza said:

I have to admit I am really confused.  Isn't this similar to extending a calling.  Bishop prays and feels inspired to put you in a position via a calling and the person than has the opportunity to think and pray on it as well?  

I feel I am missing something. 

The revelation on the calling is within the bishop's stewardship. But the revelation of whether the calling is right for the person (or the right time) is that person's.

The bishops stewardship is limited to the ward. He doesn't get personal revelation for members - that's their role. Otherwise, why have personal revelation at all. Members can just slothfully do whatever the bishop says and not take responsibility for their own witness.