Buckeye Posted February 1, 2017 Posted February 1, 2017 To change tact just a bit, would anyone here defend an instruction from an area authority for bishops to pray and receive revelation as to which young women in their wards should serve missions? If you think that instruction violates some rule, then please explain what rule and why the rule would not also apply to revelation as to which young men should serve.
rpn Posted February 1, 2017 Posted February 1, 2017 (edited) In case no one has said so yet, it tells bishop to seek inspiration before calling someone in so they can confirm that the LORD is calling the young man. Frankly a bishop calling anyone in and counseling them to do anything, without the Lord having so inspired not just the calling in, but also whatever the counsel they are giving would be ecclesiastical abuse: they are the Lord's servants, not the church's servants. What I read is a caution to bishop NOT to be telling young men what to do unless they can say it is a calling for this young man. No go because it is your priesthood duty, you'll find it easier to get married/be a good husband/father, everyone else is doing it stuff. Edited February 2, 2017 by rpn
emeliza Posted February 1, 2017 Posted February 1, 2017 1 hour ago, Buckeye said: To change tact just a bit, would anyone here defend an instruction from an area authority for bishops to pray and receive revelation as to which young women in their wards should serve missions? I think the same rules apply to men and women in this situation.
Jeanne Posted February 1, 2017 Posted February 1, 2017 Quote Doesn't matter what gender...if they can go to war..they can decide for themselves whether they want to give time to a mission. Everyone is different. Some have scholarships...some want to really go..and some just don't know and need time. Quote
bluebell Posted February 1, 2017 Posted February 1, 2017 19 hours 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 see the difference between what you said and what I said. But I have know two bishops who agreed with the person in question that they shouldn't go.
bluebell Posted February 1, 2017 Posted February 1, 2017 8 minutes ago, Jeanne said: They still get to decide for themselves if they should go. No one is making the decision for them. Knowing something is right, doesn't remove your agency to either do it or not. 1
cinepro Posted February 1, 2017 Posted February 1, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Buckeye said: To change tact just a bit, would anyone here defend an instruction from an area authority for bishops to pray and receive revelation as to which young women in their wards should serve missions? If you think that instruction violates some rule, then please explain what rule and why the rule would not also apply to revelation as to which young men should serve. Tack FWIW, here's the language from the letter. I think it's a little different than what some people have implied: Quote Instead of asking [the young men and couples] 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 prepare to be worthy to serve a mission by a given date. Edited February 1, 2017 by cinepro 1
Jeanne Posted February 1, 2017 Posted February 1, 2017 (edited) 20 minutes ago, bluebell said: They still get to decide for themselves if they should go. No one is making the decision for them. Knowing something is right, doesn't remove your agency to either do it or not. I believe that you have mentioned many times that you have been on a mission. I am sure from our online correspondence that you really wanted to go. I can assume that your parents and ward and many friends were proud and supportive of you. But..let's say you had a different feeling; perhaps had an inkling that the man you were dating was the one...that maybe a scholarship or an opportunity had arisen. You are not sure what to do...until the Bishop sits down with you and tells you that he has had inspiration close to revelation that you should go...is that fair..is that just...and would any child want to disappoint those same friends and family. Your choice..but if it differs from others...you will pay even an inkling of guilt for doing the right thing for you. Edited to add: keep in mind, your inspiration is different..you want to marry this young man or continue your studies. Edited February 1, 2017 by Jeanne
Popular Post bluebell Posted February 1, 2017 Popular Post Posted February 1, 2017 12 minutes ago, Jeanne said: I believe that you have mentioned many times that you have been on a mission. I am sure from our online correspondence that you really wanted to go. I can assume that your parents and ward and many friends were proud and supportive of you. But..let's say you had a different feeling; perhaps had an inkling that the man you were dating was the one...that maybe a scholarship or an opportunity had arisen. You are not sure what to do...until the Bishop sits down with you and tells you that he has had inspiration close to revelation that you should go...is that fair..is that just...and would any child want to disappoint those same friends and family. Your choice..but if it differs from others...you will pay even an inkling of guilt for doing the right thing for you. Edited to add: keep in mind, your inspiration is different..you want to marry this young man or continue your studies. I absolutely did not want to go. I couldn't think of much worse, honestly. I only went because I prayed and God told me I needed to go. It was very difficult. But He was right. One of the best experiences of my life. 7
The Nehor Posted February 1, 2017 Posted February 1, 2017 2 hours ago, Buckeye said: To change tact just a bit, would anyone here defend an instruction from an area authority for bishops to pray and receive revelation as to which young women in their wards should serve missions? If you think that instruction violates some rule, then please explain what rule and why the rule would not also apply to revelation as to which young men should serve. I would not do that as a bishop. Women are not under a general Priesthood obligation to serve in this capacity so I would not pray about specific women. If God prompted me to talk to a specific young woman....sure. 1
The Nehor Posted February 1, 2017 Posted February 1, 2017 14 minutes ago, bluebell said: I absolutely did not want to go. I couldn't think of much worse, honestly. I only went because I prayed and God told me I needed to go. It was very difficult. But He was right. One of the best experiences of my life. Same here. I probably would not have gone if God had not commanded me. I thought my skill set was ill-suited for the work and I was right. He rewarded me in exchange with ironclad experiences that have cemented my testimony ever since. Worth it. , 4
rongo Posted February 1, 2017 Posted February 1, 2017 2 hours ago, Buckeye said: To change tack just a bit, would anyone here defend an instruction from an area authority for bishops to pray and receive revelation as to which young women in their wards should serve missions? If you think that instruction violates some rule, then please explain what rule and why the rule would not also apply to revelation as to which young men should serve. Saturday night, we had a 58 stake broadcast to youth and youth leaders in the Phoenix area. Elder Ballard stated that many questioners wanted clarification on young women and missions, and where exactly the Church is on that. He said that President Monson's definition is the best and most concise one: young men have a priesthood duty to serve, and young women have an invitation. Elder Ballard also told young women "don't worry about it," and they would know if they should serve if they "receive a witness in their hearts" *and* are encouraged and counseled to by their parents. So, actively recruiting young women for missions like in your hypothetical would at least run counter to what Elder Ballard told us in Phoenix Saturday night . . . 1
mfbukowski Posted February 1, 2017 Posted February 1, 2017 21 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. Not to mention proving that God did NOT actually tell the bishop that.... If God told the bishop that all worthy young men should go on a mission and Brother Jones is a worthy young man then God told the Bishop that Brother Jones should go on a mission. I don't even understand the problem. 2
Danzo Posted February 1, 2017 Posted February 1, 2017 It would seem that many here have never experienced revelation in the form of a communication from a bishop. They don't think it is possible, or just don't know what it is like.
Calm Posted February 1, 2017 Posted February 1, 2017 8 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: I agree that we need a quote to review. Since this practice has not always been in place, it's not a doctrine. Doctrines are supposed to be salvific. That would dismiss the idea of continuing revelation, imo. There are many practices that have not always been in place that are now considered doctrinal, such as sealing to one's own parents. Could you provide a reference that all doctrine is salvific in nature, please. 1
carbon dioxide Posted February 1, 2017 Posted February 1, 2017 I have told my son that the choice to go in a mission is his. While I encourage him to go, if he chooses not to go that is fine also. I will not think less of him. He should only go if he has a desire to go. Not because it is expected of him by others or to make other people happy. That is not a good reason to do anything let along go on a mission. Our bishop might receive revelation on things regarding the ward but in the end, my son is entitled to this revelation more than the bishop.
carbon dioxide Posted February 1, 2017 Posted February 1, 2017 22 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.. It seems to me that we have enough missionaries out there already and baptisms have fallen a little bit. Perhaps we have too many missionaries (fishermen) for the number of fish currently stocked in the sea.
Calm Posted February 1, 2017 Posted February 1, 2017 7 hours 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 can see getting confirmation in a case where the son was needed at home because the ward could not support his family in emotional and social needs even if financially they provided all the help needed that way. I can also see a confirmation not to go if for some reason his presence would distract from the work or attract people for the wrong reason (stalkers, paparazzi), such as a too well known celebrity or someone who might require bodyguards (children of government officials or very rich, well known parents). Or there just may be a reason we are completely unaware of and may never be aware of that the young man needs to be somewhere besides a mission. 1
Calm Posted February 1, 2017 Posted February 1, 2017 3 hours ago, rpn said: In case no one has said so yet, it tells bishop to seek inspiration before calling someone in so they can confirm that the LORD is calling the young man. Frankly a bishop calling anyone in and counseling them to do anything, without the Lord having so inspired not just the calling in, but also whatever the counsel they are giving would be ecclesiastical able: they are the Lord's servants, not the church's servants. What I read is a caution to bishop NOT to be telling young men what to do unless they can say it is a calling for this young man. No go because it is your priesthood duty, you'll find it easier to get married/be a good husband/father, everyone else is doing it stuff. I need to remember to come back and give you a point for this. This is how I read it too.
mfbukowski Posted February 1, 2017 Posted February 1, 2017 1 hour ago, Danzo said: It would seem that many here have never experienced revelation in the form of a communication from a bishop. They don't think it is possible, or just don't know what it is like. I will tell you this much- I have had that mantle in my life and I know it is real. I would sit in sacrament meeting and people would almost "glow" or just pop out at me or draw my attention for no apparent reason and upon later interview, find out that they had a problem or were the right person for a calling etc. Now I am still on the stand often for other reasons- it never happens now, nor did it before. "Oh it's just in your mind!" Darn right- where else would it be?? Every thought I think is "in my mind"- what else is new? One will have to come up with a better explanation than that to challenge what I know, which is also "all in my mind". 3
Meadowchik Posted February 2, 2017 Posted February 2, 2017 (edited) On Wednesday, February 01, 2017 at 5:17 PM, 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. I'm so sorry for your son, Tacenda! My 15 year old has high functioning autism, recently diagnosed. I don't know if he would be capable of serving full time mission, and it has not been that long that such a condition has become so well known. I asked for the rest, so without it we might have much more trouble explaining why he might not be able. Likewise, other young men may not be ready, even if completely worthy and with the appearance of capability. Edited February 2, 2017 by Meadowchik 1
Bob Crockett Posted February 2, 2017 Posted February 2, 2017 (edited) On 1/31/2017 at 4:31 PM, 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. Are missionaries not adults? Can't they think for themselves? They are old enough to serve in the military. You talk about you being "pissed off" and the lack of "personal freedoms." You are aware, are you not, that the great majority of young men in the Church choose not to serve missions. On the Wasatch Front it is like 70 percent. Sure, there are some who go because of parental pressure or a bishop's encouragement. But how is that different that parental pressure to go to a particular university. In the end, the kid/adult has the "personal freedom" to do as he chooses. I went on a mission from almost total inactivity to the mission field in about 2 months because I wanted to do so. I'd think there's a lot like I was. Edited February 3, 2017 by Bob Crockett 1
Gray Posted February 2, 2017 Posted February 2, 2017 On 1/31/2017 at 6:58 PM, 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".... My singles ward bishop actually discouraged me from going. In retrospect I think he may not have been a believer.
Gray Posted February 2, 2017 Posted February 2, 2017 18 hours ago, mfbukowski said: I will tell you this much- I have had that mantle in my life and I know it is real. I would sit in sacrament meeting and people would almost "glow" or just pop out at me or draw my attention for no apparent reason and upon later interview, find out that they had a problem or were the right person for a calling etc. Now I am still on the stand often for other reasons- it never happens now, nor did it before. "Oh it's just in your mind!" Darn right- where else would it be?? Every thought I think is "in my mind"- what else is new? One will have to come up with a better explanation than that to challenge what I know, which is also "all in my mind". If you believed you still had the mantle (despite rules saying you don't) do you think you would still experience those kinds of intuitions?
JLHPROF Posted February 2, 2017 Posted February 2, 2017 18 hours ago, Calm said: Could you provide a reference that all doctrine is salvific in nature, please. Well, maybe not ALL doctrine, but doctrine in general (or knowledge, or truth, or light, or intelligence - whichever term for true doctrine you prefer). Knowledge of true doctrine is absolutely salvific. So is Happyjackwagon correct that if it's NOT salvific in nature it's not doctrine? That's like say all ducks are birds but not all birds are ducks. Salvation requires knowledge of doctrine, but no all doctrines will lead to salvation. Joseph Smith "When God offers a blessing or knowledge to a man, and he refuses to receive it, he will be damned" "“Knowledge is necessary to life and godliness. Woe unto you priests and divines who preach that knowledge is not necessary unto life and salvation. Take away Apostles, etc., take away knowledge, and you will find yourselves worthy of the damnation of hell. Knowledge is revelation. Hear, all ye brethren, this grand key: knowledge is the power of God unto salvation" "A man is saved no faster than he gets knowledge" "“Whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the resurrection res . And if a person gains more knowledge and intelligence in this life through his diligence and obedience than another, he will have so much the advantage in the world to come." "It is impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance.” "The things of God are of deep import; and time, and experience, and careful and ponderous and solemn thoughts can only find them out. Thy mind, O man! if thou wilt lead a soul unto salvation, must stretch as high as the utmost heavens, and search into and contemplate the darkest abyss, and the broad expanse of eternity—thou must commune with God." So is Happyjackwagon correct that if it's NOT salvific in nature it's not doctrine? That's like saying all ducks are birds but not all birds are ducks. Salvation requires knowledge of doctrine, but not all doctrines will lead to salvation.
Recommended Posts