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

[bluebell]

14 hours 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...

Me neither.  I think that the Lord would also want most senior couples to serve.  That's why i sincerely don't see why this is considered scandalous by some people.  All the area authority is doing is asking bishops to remind people that God is the one who calls people on missions and that it's what He wants that matters, not what we want.  

The question shouldn't be 'do i want to serve a mission' but 'Does God want me to serve a mission'.  THere's nothing surprising or nefarious about bishop instructions to that effect.  

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

Me neither.  I think that the Lord would also want most senior couples to serve.  That's why i sincerely don't see why this is considered scandalous by some people.  All the area authority is doing is asking bishops to remind people that God is the one who calls people on missions and that it's what He wants that matters, not what we want.  

The question shouldn't be 'do i want to serve a mission' but 'Does God want me to serve a mission'.  THere's nothing surprising or nefarious about bishop instructions to that effect.  

What if they're wrong? And the senior couple or young man/woman isn't ready? And they will do whatever the leader tells them. But like you, I don't have that big of a problem with it. Except that it stressed my son out, and possibly lead to his inactivity. Now if I was a full on TBM, I might be more upset right? That my son would cry and be so sick of being called in by the bishop and called by his young men's leader all the time. Memory is being flooded now with the times that he would complain to me that they wouldn't leave him alone.

[The Nehor]

40 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Its manipulation for the bishop to claim that god told him that the boy is to serve...and the GA's are instructing the SP to have the bishops manipulate the boys...

Nope, it is only manipulation if God did not give the Bishop the confirmation and the Bishop says God did. That would be manipulation and lying.

[bluebell]

14 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Imagine the young man who is being pressured to go on a mission.  His ward, YM leaders, parents and bishop all have expectations of him going. Now his bishop ups the pressure telling the young man that he's received confirmation from God that the young man is to go.  But secretly the young man doesn't want to go...but under pressure he goes and it doesn't work out...can you even imagine the guilt, humiliation and social stigma this poor boy is going to face?  It's already bad, this makes it worse...why not just allow every individual a free non pressured opportunity to chose for themselves whether a mission is what the individual actually wants to do.

i went on a mission because I wanted to go...but I knew many missionaries who were pressured to go  I loved my mission, they hated theirs

 

 

That's a hard situation, but the problem is the young man, not those who are trying to help him obey God.  That is the reality of this religion.  It is not about following our own desires.  It is not about choosing the easiest path.  It's not about 'being comfortable.'  It's about doing what God asks us to do.  If the boy is not there yet, then he needs to get there.  He doesn't need help lowering his expectations of himself.

And if he doesn't believe that God wants him to go on a mission, then he needs to be mature enough to not go (i realize that that is harder said than done, but as adults it's a skill we all need to learn).

I hate it when young people make bad choices, have bad attitudes, and then the natural consequences follow, and people want to blame those consequences on someone other than the young person.

Our adult children are capable of so much more than we expect of them.

[Buckeye]

16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

For problem #1-is it that odd to presume that in an entire ward, the bishop would pretty much always get confirmation that someone needs to serve?  That doesn't seem presumptuous at all to me.  I mean, our doctrine is that every young man has a responsibility to serve.  That right there would practically guarantee that there would always been someone in a ward that God wanted to serve a mission.

For problem #2-no it doesn't.  The person/couple still has the right to confirmation and the responsibility to seek it.  And the bishop already has the right to receive revelation (known as stewardship) for members of his ward in regards to church callings (which is all a mission is).  He exercises this right all the time.  

No, the doctrine is not that every young man is responsible to serve. The doctrine is that every young man is responsible to prepare to serve. Many will not be called because of physical issues, mental issues, family obligations, or other reasons known to them.

I agree that, statistically speaking, most any ward would include at least one young man who God wants to serve a mission at any particular time.

BUT, we're not talking about ward missionary or any other ward calling here that would be within a bishop's stewardship. We are talking about full-time missionary calls. Bishops don't make those calls. They are involved in recommendations, interviews and preparation for a mission, but a bishop has no stewardship to tell anyone that he received revelation that they should serve a mission, much less when to serve. Such a claim is just as improper as if the bishop claimed revelation in deciding which full-time missionaries should be assigned to his ward or what their daily schedule should entail.

There are bounds to all stewardships. For example, an apostle claiming authority to resurrect someone would be outside his authority (see Oaks' April 2014 conference address). For bishops, there are many bounds - geographical, time, etc. One of those is callings. A bishop can't get revelation on who should be a high counselor for his stake or who should be the next Patriarch. And he doesn't get revelation on who or when full-time mission calls should be extended.

 

[The Nehor]

42 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

So you use an illustration of a myth to make your point?  Ok

You would ignore the main point  of the post and focus on the mostly irrelevant joke I threw in at the end because it made me giggle. I am sorry to hear about your sense of humor. When are you holding the funeral and will there be funeral potatos? I like funeral potatos.

[Buckeye]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Me neither.  I think that the Lord would also want most senior couples to serve.  That's why i sincerely don't see why this is considered scandalous by some people.  All the area authority is doing is asking bishops to remind people that God is the one who calls people on missions and that it's what He wants that matters, not what we want.  

The question shouldn't be 'do i want to serve a mission' but 'Does God want me to serve a mission'.  THere's nothing surprising or nefarious about bishop instructions to that effect.  

No, per the OP, the AA is asking for more than just a "reminder." He's asking for bishops to seek and claim revelation on who should serve and when.

And of course the bottom-line question is "does God want me to serve." But the issue is who answers the question - the member or the bishop? In this regard, you actually answered correctly: "Does God want me to serve a mission" is the proper request, not "Does God want Joe in my ward to serve a mission."

[JLHPROF]

Wow.  There are a lot of people here would have hated living in the days of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.  (Probably for multiple reasons).
Imagine watching your child or spouse called on a mission from the pulpit in sacrament meeting with no forewarning.

Bottom line is either those involved believe such calls come from God or they don't.
If they don't they shouldn't accept.  If you aren't involved whether you believe or doubt the call is largely irrelevant to whether it came from God or not.

[Robert F. Smith]

54 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Its manipulation for the bishop to claim that god told him that the boy is to serve...and the GA's are instructing the SP to have the bishops manipulate the boys...

But you are putting the most negative possible face on it, Johnnie.  Reminds me of the time years ago when my bishop asked me if I had ever considered being a veil worker in the temple.  I was there for a different reason, so thought that he must be asking me a conversational question.  I replied that, no, I had not -- because I really had not given it any thought.  A week later I was back to see him and ask how I might become a veil worker.  His soft-sell succeeded rather well, even though he probably hadn't even meant it to be taken so lightly.

Of course you are speaking of outright "manipulation," but is that really a fair interpretation?  Or might it be taken another way?

[HappyJackWagon]

43 minutes ago, bluebell said:

For problem #1-is it that odd to presume that in an entire ward, the bishop would pretty much always get confirmation that someone needs to serve?  That doesn't seem presumptuous at all to me.  I mean, our doctrine is that every young man has a responsibility to serve.  That right there would practically guarantee that there would always been someone in a ward that God wanted to serve a mission.

For problem #2-no it doesn't.  The person/couple still has the right to confirmation and the responsibility to seek it.  And the bishop already has the right to receive revelation (known as stewardship) for members of his ward in regards to church callings (which is all a mission is).  He exercises this right all the time.  

Again, not a doctrine.  

[Johnnie Cake]

36 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Me neither.  I think that the Lord would also want most senior couples to serve.  That's why i sincerely don't see why this is considered scandalous by some people.  All the area authority is doing is asking bishops to remind people that God is the one who calls people on missions and that it's what He wants that matters, not what we want.  

The question shouldn't be 'do i want to serve a mission' but 'Does God want me to serve a mission'.  THere's nothing surprising or nefarious about bishop instructions to that effect.  

I have no doubt that most seniors as well as young men and now young woman have a clear understanding of what is expected by our culture...without the added manipulation tactic of a Bishop telling them that he too has received confirmation don't you think?

Edited February 1, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[bluebell]

53 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

You don't want to view it? Because it's as easy as typing in a couple of websites, that I mentioned before.

ETA: It's in the Terrestrial thread under: How to coerce young men into serving missions...

I've never been to the "trailer court" (i would call it by it's real name but i don't know what that actually is-i haven't paid close enough attention) and have no desire to do so now.  Nothing against it, i'm sure i would emerge unscathed, i'm just not interested in tracking it down, especially when it would be really easy to provide the quote here (and thank you to those who did so!).

[Johnnie Cake]

24 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

You would ignore the main point  of the post and focus on the mostly irrelevant joke I threw in at the end because it made me giggle. I am sorry to hear about your sense of humor. When are you holding the funeral and will there be funeral potatos? I like funeral potatos.

Your reply made me laugh...does that count?

[Storm Rider]

16 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

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.

 

I suppose you have a problem with Jonah being pestered by God to actually do what he was called to do also.  You know, some people are more like porcupines that have their quills stuck out everywhere just looking to take offense at what other people do or say or even think.  Your self-righteous indignation at all things LDS begins to wear just a bit thin.

[Johnnie Cake]

12 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

But you are putting the most negative possible face on it, Johnnie.  Reminds me of the time years ago when my bishop asked me if I had ever considered being a veil worker in the temple.  I was there for a different reason, so thought that he must be asking me a conversational question.  I replied that, no, I had not -- because I really had not given it any thought.  A week later I was back to see him and ask how I might become a veil worker.  His soft-sell succeeded rather well, even though he probably hadn't even meant it to be taken so lightly.

Of course you are speaking of outright "manipulation," but is that really a fair interpretation?  Or might it be taken another way?

Fair question...when I consider that tremendous amount of cultural pressure a young missionary prospect already has facing them when they consider serving a full time mission...I just see this as an added and unnecessary additional effort to manipulate the prospect to conform to what church authorities want instead of deferring to what the prospect might desire.  In my opinion the prospect will be a much better missionary if the decision is theirs alone (understanding that they may involved their God) instead of being harangued into doing something that they may have under different circumstances not chosen to do.

Removing as much cultural pressure as possible will actually create better missionaries...prospects who actually want to go instead of missionaries who didn't want to but felt compelled to serve.

[bluebell]

19 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I'm have no doubt that most seniors as well as young men and now young woman have a clear understanding of what is expected by our culture...without the added manipulation tactic of a Bishop telling them that he too has received confirmation don't you think?

If God really does want the person to serve, how is that manipulation?  

[Buckeye]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If God really does want the person to serve, how is that manipulation?  

Because its coming through an inappropriate source. Imagine if a man approached you and said he'd received revelation that you two should be married. Is that manipulation? What if it's true? The proper response there is, "whatever God has told you is between you and Him, but revelation for whom I will marry will come directly to me."

[Johnnie Cake]

33 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

I suppose you have a problem with Jonah being pestered by God to actually do what he was called to do also.  

I'm pretty confident that the Jonah and the whale story is a myth and never actually happened.  But that is just my opinion...so please take it as such and I respect that you view the Jonah story differently.

Quote

You know, some people are more like porcupines that have their quills stuck out everywhere just looking to take offense at what other people do or say or even think. Your self-righteous indignation at all things LDS begins to wear just a bit thin.

This comment struck my heart.  If this is how you perceive my posts, I in all sincerity apologize.  It is not my intent to offend anyone on this board but to merely engage in Mormon themed discussions.  I admit that my worldview and Mormon experience differs from yours...and it is my hope that it is this differing perspective that I bring to this board...an opinion that is different from the vast majority of the board members.  I want to get along and I don't want to offend anyone...I sincerely try to engage in constructive dialogue...I enjoy the back and forth, the engagement and testing of my worldview...and believe it or not I actually learn things in doing so...and yes some of my views have change as a result.  I post these words in all sincerity and I hope that you take them in the same spirit they are written. Feel free to I/M me if necessary.

Edited February 1, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[Johnnie Cake]

15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If God really does want the person to serve, how is that manipulation?  

refer to your comment at the top of this page...I think this answers your question.  The manipulation is self evident if you yourself can't even imagine a scenario where God wouldn't tell a Bishop that the young man shouldn't go.

Quote

Posted 27 minutes ago · Report post

15 hours 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...

Me neither.  I think that the Lord would also want most senior couples to serve.  That's why i sincerely don't see why this is considered scandalous by some people.  All the area authority is doing is asking bishops to remind people that God is the one who calls people on missions and that it's what He wants that matters, not what we want.  

The question shouldn't be 'do i want to serve a mission' but 'Does God want me to serve a mission'.  THere's nothing surprising or nefarious about bishop instructions to that effect

 

[Rain]

28 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Nope, it is only manipulation if God did not give the Bishop the confirmation and the Bishop says God did. That would be manipulation and lying.

Bishops can manipulate even if it is from God. I don't have a problem with what I saw quoted. I just know that how it is carried out can be very different. I think there is a very fine line here in following what was said.

I grew up in a controlling household which control didn't have anything to do with  being LDS - Dad just learned it in his controlling home (not LDS) growing up. From things I have heard from President Hinckley it sounds like he was raised very differently.  When I hear things like what he said above I have to mentally place myself out of my home so see if something is manipulative. Some bishops who have grown up in similar homes may not have that recognition. 

So even though I am ok, and even agree with what he said, I do think it can be easily applied poorly.

[The Nehor]

56 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I have no doubt that most seniors as well as young men and now young woman have a clear understanding of what is expected by our culture...without the added manipulation tactic of a Bishop telling them that he too has received confirmation don't you think?

They do, but some would be honored to have a bishop, acting in the name of the Lord, say he has been prompted to call them to prepare for a mission.

[bluebell]

47 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

What if they're wrong? And the senior couple or young man/woman isn't ready? And they will do whatever the leader tells them. But like you, I don't have that big of a problem with it. Except that it stressed my son out, and possibly lead to his inactivity. Now if I was a full on TBM, I might be more upset right? That my son would cry and be so sick of being called in by the bishop and called by his young men's leader all the time. Memory is being flooded now with the times that he would complain to me that they wouldn't leave him alone.

Don't get me wrong, i don't think that any bishop should push someone to serve a mission (but I don't see a bishop telling someone of inspiration he received about serving a mission from God to be 'pushing').  Once the meeting has occurred and the bishop has said what he believes God wants him to say, then he should let the person do what he wants with that information, while being supportive and kind.

But I'm tired of people putting the consequences of choices they made onto someone else.  We are taught that we need to seek our own confirmation when someone tells us "God says."  No one should do 'whatever a leader tells them' unless they believe it's also what God wants them to do.

I'm sorry that your son felt hounded.  I'm sure that was not a fun feeling.  My own husband put off serving because he felt hounded his bishop and he's the type who will not do something just because someone wants him to.  He did eventually serve though and he knows that if he had chosen not to (when he knew he should) because of an overbearing bishop, that that would have been on him and no one else.

[bluebell]

29 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Because its coming through an inappropriate source. Imagine if a man approached you and said he'd received revelation that you two should be married. Is that manipulation? What if it's true? The proper response there is, "whatever God has told you is between you and Him, but revelation for whom I will marry will come directly to me."

I know you believe that, but i don't, and i don't see any support for your belief other than your opinion that it's right.  I think that bishops obviously have stewardship to tell someone God wants them to serve a mission.  I based that on the fact that the prophet and 12 apostles believe that the is under the bishop's stewardship to receive revelation on who should be working towards serving a mission.

[bluebell]

27 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

refer to your comment at the top of this page...I think this answers your question.  The manipulation is self evident if you yourself can't even imagine a scenario where God wouldn't tell a Bishop that the young man shouldn't go.

 

I'm not seeing it.  I can imagine many situations where some young men shouldn't go.  I can't imagine that situation if the young man is the type you described at the top of the page because such a young man has a responsibility to go.  That is a teaching of the church. 

[cinepro]

2 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

I suppose you have a problem with Jonah being pestered by God to actually do what he was called to do also.  You know, some people are more like porcupines that have their quills stuck out everywhere just looking to take offense at what other people do or say or even think.  Your self-righteous indignation at all things LDS begins to wear just a bit thin.

What is being discussed in the leaked memo is the exact opposite of what happened to Jonah.