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

[emeliza]

Just now, Buckeye said:

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. 

Are you saying the Bishop doesn't have stewardship to get revelation about someone serving a mission?

[Buckeye]

4 minutes ago, emeliza said:

Are you saying the Bishop doesn't have stewardship to get revelation about someone serving a mission?

Correct. He can teach doctrine and encourage. But whether and when to serve is the members revelation. Same thing as getting married. 

That said, once a member gets revelation to go, the church has stewardship to get revelation on where to send him or her. 

Edited February 1, 2017 by Buckeye

[Johnnie Cake]

18 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?

 

 

 

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

 

 

[Bernard Gui]

27 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

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.

 

 

My uncle died in the London Temple while serving a temple mission with my aunt. What a great way to go.

 

[Johnnie Cake]

21 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. 

That's how you think callings are made...reality is quite different.  When I was in the bishopric we had a blackboard with Unfilled callings on one side and members without callings on the other...oh we prayed, but in truth we just drew line between the 2 sides of the board and told the members it's what god wants u to do

[Johnnie Cake]

18 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I can.

You would 😁

[sjdawg]

3 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.

 

This is the only one of the most recent leaks that bothered me.  It seems extremely manipulative.   

[Robert F. Smith]

4 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.

You would probably do better to quote the offensive sentence(s), rather than providing you own characterization, Johnnie.  That way we could get to the nitty gritty instead of any negative bias controlling the narrative.  Let the chips fall where they may.

[Rain]

3 hours 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?







 

If it is as described it would be for me.  It would definitely be for my son.  It had been very difficult sometimes for me to choose the right thing if someone tells me that I need to. It is sometimes a real fight within. The fight is not so strong in my son. He just chooses to say no even if he wants to do the thing that is right if someone tries to do something like this.

That said, I'd really have to read what was said before I could decide whether I was ok with it or not. I likely would get something very different out of it than Johnnie does.

3 hours 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. 

I agree with your ideas here. I would have to read what was said in order to decide if I thought your ideas applied to it or not.

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You would probably do better to quote the offensive sentence(s), rather than providing you own characterization, Johnnie.  That way we could get to the nitty gritty instead of any negative bias controlling the narrative.  Let the chips fall where they may.

Protip: It is because his characterization is more titillating and sinister while the document is fairly mundane.

It starts out with a quote from President Hinckley challenging young men and couples to plan to serve a mission. Then it gets to the evil pressurey part. Here is the quote:

"According to our records there are 35 full-time young elders serving from your stake, and 5 senior full-time couple missionaries serving from your stake. Would you be so kind as to discuss this matter with your counselors, the high council, your bishoprics, and the quorum leaders, putting a renewed emphasis on this important matter. As you know, it will necessitate a number of interviews with young men, and couples as well. Instead of asking them whether or not they want 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 be prepare to be worthy to serve a mission by a given date."

It then says if you have any good success stories to pass them on and is signed by the Presidency.

So, it is reminding the stake that it is their job to prepare missionaries and that Bishops should seek confirmation in prayer before extending the call. Standard LDS stuff and clearly indicating the Bishop should seek the confirmation first and not say there was one to pressure them to go.

Other then a few grammar issues I see nothing wrong with this except.....WAIT......NOOOOOOO!!!! There is something HORRIBLY WRONG here!

How can you have 5 senior full-time couple missionaries?!?!? If any of them are single they wouldn't be a couple. It is unlikely one of them is serving with a spouse from another stake. That just would not make sense. The rabbit hole must go deeper.

The only logical conclusion is that 3 of those missionaries are in a secret POLYGAMOUS marriage! Or maybe even all 5 of THEM!!!! They were probably sent out of the country to avoid prosecution under the pretext of serving a mission. This memo proves the church is trying to sneak polygamy back in and are using secret missives to HIDE THIS FROM US!!!!

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Buckeye said:

Correct. He can teach doctrine and encourage. But whether and when to serve is the members revelation. Same thing as getting married. 

That said, once a member gets revelation to go, the church has stewardship to get revelation on where to send him or her. 

Nope, the Bishop can call someone to serve and act in the name of God in doing so. The person can refuse of course or seek their own confirmation but the Bishop has the right to receive revelations for his members.

[JulieM]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Nope, the Bishop can call someone to serve and act in the name of God in doing so. The person can refuse of course or seek their own confirmation but the Bishop has the right to receive revelations for his members.

But the Bishop doesn't call the young man, woman, or couple (issue the mission call), does he?

Edited February 1, 2017 by JulieM

[The Nehor]

2 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

Because that is not how the Kingdom of God works. God calls people to do things. Rarely in person and often through his servants. It is not something they decide they want to do and God is okay with it either way. The person has agency and can refuse a call. This happens but it does not mean God did not call the person to serve.

It is also worth noting that there is a precedent that choosing not to serve can result in being swallowed by a large sea creature.

 

Just saying.

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, JulieM said:

But the Bishop doesn't call the young man, woman, or couple (issue the mission call), does he?

The final call, no. That comes from the apostles. A bishop or Stake President can, through revelation, call someone to prepare to serve and do everything needed to answer the general call the prophets and apostles have made to serve. Then the apostles issue the formal call with the location to be served at and all the rest.

[Rain]

9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Protip: It is because his characterization is more titillating and sinister while the document is fairly mundane.

It starts out with a quote from President Hinckley challenging young men and couples to plan to serve a mission. Then it gets to the evil pressurey part. Here is the quote:

"According to our records there are 35 full-time young elders serving from your stake, and 5 senior full-time couple missionaries serving from your stake. Would you be so kind as to discuss this matter with your counselors, the high council, your bishoprics, and the quorum leaders, putting a renewed emphasis on this important matter. As you know, it will necessitate a number of interviews with young men, and couples as well. Instead of asking them whether or not they want 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 be prepare to be worthy to serve a mission by a given date."

It then says if you have any good success stories to pass them on and is signed by the Presidency.

So, it is reminding the stake that it is their job to prepare missionaries and that Bishops should seek confirmation in prayer before extending the call. Standard LDS stuff and clearly indicating the Bishop should seek the confirmation first and not say there was one to pressure them to go.

Other then a few grammar issues I see nothing wrong with this except.....WAIT......NOOOOOOO!!!! There is something HORRIBLY WRONG here!

How can you have 5 senior full-time couple missionaries?!?!? If any of them are single they wouldn't be a couple. It is unlikely one of them is serving with a spouse from another stake. That just would not make sense. The rabbit hole must go deeper.

The only logical conclusion is that 3 of those missionaries are in a secret POLYGAMOUS marriage! Or maybe even all 5 of THEM!!!! They were probably sent out of the country to avoid prosecution under the pretext of serving a mission. This memo proves the church is trying to sneak polygamy back in and are using secret missives to HIDE THIS FROM US!!!!

And this is why the qutoes are important - that reads differently to me than suggested in the OP.

Edited February 1, 2017 by Rain

[HappyJackWagon]

14 hours 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 agree that we need a quote to review.

However, the expectation that all YM serve a mission is a policy and practice, not a doctrine. Doctrines are supposed to be eternal. Since this practice has not always been in place, it's not a doctrine. Doctrines are supposed to be salvific. A person's salvation is not dependent on whether they serve a full time mission.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

14 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.

 

At least the bishops aren't claiming an angel with a flaming sword demands they serve a mission. Is this progress?  

[JulieM]

50 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree that we need a quote to review.

I think it may have already been given, but here it is:

"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."

Is this any different than how a Bishop issues other calls (I know he's not issuing an official call here, but how is this different)?

ETA:

The title of the document is:

"Increased Emphasis on the Calling of Young Elders and Missionary Couples"

Does that mean the process described is something new?

Edited February 1, 2017 by JulieM

[Johnnie Cake]

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You would probably do better to quote the offensive sentence(s), rather than providing you own characterization, Johnnie.  That way we could get to the nitty gritty instead of any negative bias controlling the narrative.  Let the chips fall where they may.

Keep reading Robert...I did just that later in the thread...

[Johnnie Cake]

10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Protip: It is because his characterization is more titillating and sinister while the document is fairly mundane.

It starts out with a quote from President Hinckley challenging young men and couples to plan to serve a mission. Then it gets to the evil pressurey part. Here is the quote:

"According to our records there are 35 full-time young elders serving from your stake, and 5 senior full-time couple missionaries serving from your stake. Would you be so kind as to discuss this matter with your counselors, the high council, your bishoprics, and the quorum leaders, putting a renewed emphasis on this important matter. As you know, it will necessitate a number of interviews with young men, and couples as well. Instead of asking them whether or not they want 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 be prepare to be worthy to serve a mission by a given date."

It then says if you have any good success stories to pass them on and is signed by the Presidency.

So, it is reminding the stake that it is their job to prepare missionaries and that Bishops should seek confirmation in prayer before extending the call. Standard LDS stuff and clearly indicating the Bishop should seek the confirmation first and not say there was one to pressure them to go.

Other then a few grammar issues I see nothing wrong with this except.....WAIT......NOOOOOOO!!!! There is something HORRIBLY WRONG here!

How can you have 5 senior full-time couple missionaries?!?!? If any of them are single they wouldn't be a couple. It is unlikely one of them is serving with a spouse from another stake. That just would not make sense. The rabbit hole must go deeper.

The only logical conclusion is that 3 of those missionaries are in a secret POLYGAMOUS marriage! Or maybe even all 5 of THEM!!!! They were probably sent out of the country to avoid prosecution under the pretext of serving a mission. This memo proves the church is trying to sneak polygamy back in and are using secret missives to HIDE THIS FROM US!!!!

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...

[Johnnie Cake]

10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Because that is not how the Kingdom of God works. God calls people to do things. Rarely in person and often through his servants. It is not something they decide they want to do and God is okay with it either way. The person has agency and can refuse a call. This happens but it does not mean God did not call the person to serve.

It is also worth noting that there is a precedent that choosing not to serve can result in being swallowed by a large sea creature.

 

Just saying.

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

[bluebell]

13 hours ago, Tacenda said:

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.

Unless the bishop is making someone go, what does it matter?  People have to choose to accept the call, and we are told that we need to get confirmation from the spirit when our leaders share inspiration with us.  

I haven't seen the actual wording, but the way everyone is explaining it, this seems like a really odd thing to be upset about.

[Tacenda]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Unless the bishop is making someone go, what does it matter?  People have to choose to accept the call, and we are told that we need to get confirmation from the spirit when our leaders share inspiration with us.  

I haven't seen the actual wording, but the way everyone is explaining it, this seems like a really odd thing to be upset about.

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...

Edited February 1, 2017 by Tacenda

[JulieM]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Unless the bishop is making someone go, what does it matter?  People have to choose to accept the call, and we are told that we need to get confirmation from the spirit when our leaders share inspiration with us.  

I haven't seen the actual wording, but the way everyone is explaining it, this seems like a really odd thing to be upset about.

I just reposted the quote above.

[bluebell]

14 hours 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. 

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.