Elder Oaks on early returning missionaries

[rpn]

5 hours ago, RevTestament said:

 

'Don’t let members use you or your missionaries as conduits or authorities to answer doctrinal questions,' he said. 'This is not your assignment.'”

It almost sounds like they don't want missionaries to answer doctrinal questions, period. I kind of thought that was one of their main functions - to teach Church doctrine.

If you live outside a a part of the world with released time seminary, you've probably experienced the phenomenon of a new institute director (all male) being the resident theologian:  members think that the ID is the end all and be all of church history, doctrine and goodness.   (Obviously when they aren't particular charismatic, or aren't all that well informed, or more often when they think more like parrots and that there is only one way to live the gospel of Jesus Christ faithfully, this can cause disunity and other bad affects on many.)  

 I think President Oaks is telling MP that they should not be accepting the role of primary theologian ---- that when members are allowed to lean for all things doctrinal on a MP, and ID,  etc., they do not do their own due diligence, and one person's interpretation, no matter how informed is just one person's interpretation of scripture and can lead them astray.  

Yes, missionaries teach the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but it is the first plain and simple steps, not the theology behind the November revelation to delay baptism of children of gay parents.

[smac97]

47 minutes ago, rongo said:

This is a big problem in the Church. Outside of missions, we also have members who don't live the gospel program, and feel constantly judged and are very defensive about it --- and members are typically not bringing it up at all or making them feel inferior. It is solely the people's consciences.

Well, perhaps.  But is there any room for improvement on our part?

47 minutes ago, rongo said:

Where this is a problem, these people reliably and inevitably bring up in any lesson or talk that teaches standards of behavior (Sabbath day observance, tithing, WoW, FHE, HT/VT, etc. etc.) that we are driving people away by making them feel inadequate. To them, we should never, ever bring up standards of behavior, commandments, ideals, etc. --- worlds without end. If these things are taught or discussed, no matter how diplomatically or deftly, they howl like banshees. 

I wonder if we can be more "diplomatic" and "deft."  I also wonder if we can go out of our way to make these folks feel welcomed and valued and respected, regardless of the individual's measure of observance.

47 minutes ago, rongo said:

I see the people who feel (whether perceived reality or not) mission shaming is weighing against them in this boat. They feel the community ideal, and they bristle at the frequent mention of the importance and blessings of missions.

"Bristle" is one reaction, sure.  But there can also be regret.  Real, heart-felt regret.  Perhaps coupled with some flavor of embarrassment or shame at not adhering to the behavioral expectations.  That regret can then proceed into "bristling," then outright anger, then . . . leaving activity in the Church.

47 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think the "mission shaming" is largely in their heads and consciences, even in Utah. If anything, most Mormons err on the side of what Lou Midgley called "Mormon Nice" (they are too loathe to make people uncomfortable), especially in awkward situations when there was an early mission return, or a sealing had to be postponed, or someone was disciplined. 

Okay.  But I can't help but think there is room for us to improve.  Not abandoning the behavioral standards and expectations, nope.  But increasing genuine love and affection and support ("Mormon Nice" has a whiff of insincerity about it).

Thanks,

-Smac

[rongo]

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, perhaps.  But is there any room for improvement on our part?

Of course, there always is. But if the problem is consistently overblown and painting members like they are merciless and vicious towards kids who came home early, that isn't good or fair. Especially if, when, and to the extent that people have been nothing but supportive and friendly to them.

I wonder if we can be more "diplomatic" and "deft."  I also wonder if we can go out of our way to make these folks feel welcomed and valued and respected, regardless of the individual's measure of observance.

Almost everybody does, in my experience and observation. It is awkward for everyone, and people bend over backwards and go out of their way to try and help it and have it not be. But, I find, often kids in this boat still feel they are judged and shamed by many others, despite this going out of the way. I mean, what else can we do if we're already going out of our way?

"Bristle" is one reaction, sure.  But there can also be regret.  Real, heart-felt regret.  Perhaps coupled with some flavor of embarrassment or shame at not adhering to the behavioral expectations.  That regret can then proceed into "bristling," then outright anger, then . . . leaving activity in the Church.

If people can't navigate and make peace with their real regret, after all we can do ---- what can we do?

Consequences are inevitable, and cannot be wished away or completely assuaged by people going out of their way. I served as a counselor with a brother who left the MTC after a few days for no good reason. He didn't have anxiety or depression and wasn't unworthy; he just couldn't do it. It has haunted him his whole life, but he hasn't let it weigh him down or define him. His kids are good, and he has served in stake leadership callings. Yet, he still deeply regrets not going and coming home from the MTC. Nothing will take this away. I think the difference between him and those for whom this is shipwreck is that he truly did move on and didn't let it define him. Those who make shipwreck over this are bitter at the Church and other people for this regret and wistfulness that will never completely be gone, no matter what anybody or any institution does. The fact remains that they came home, and nothing changes that. But people can choose not to let that define them.

Okay.  But I can't help but think there is room for us to improve.  Not abandoning the behavioral standards and expectations, nope.  But increasing genuine love and affection and support ("Mormon Nice" has a whiff of insincerity about it).

I think we're already almost at capacity in the love and affection department, while realizing that perfection is impossible on earth and so there is always room for improvement. 

The "Mormon Nice" concept isn't insincere. We, culturally, are often so adamant about people never feeling uncomfortable that we couch things in euphemisms and fail to address things that need to be addressed. We are erring on the side of sparing feelings, which in the main is a good thing more than it isn't, but this comes at a cost sometimes. 

[ERMD]

5 hours ago, ALarson said:

I agree with this, but I do feel that missionaries going out today need to be better prepared for some of the topics and questions that naturally may come up (regarding Joseph Smith, polygamy, etc.).  Hopefully they are at least required to read and study the essays. 

Since this comment was directed to presidents of visitor's centers, I took it to mean that the missionaries assigned there shouldn't focus on teaching about the history of the place (the facilities), but rather on the people and teaching them.

[smac97]

28 minutes ago, rongo said:

Of course, there always is. But if the problem is consistently overblown and painting members like they are merciless and vicious towards kids who came home early, that isn't good or fair. Especially if, when, and to the extent that people have been nothing but supportive and friendly to them.

Well, yes.

28 minutes ago, rongo said:

Almost everybody does, in my experience and observation. It is awkward for everyone, and people bend over backwards and go out of their way to try and help it and have it not be. But, I find, often kids in this boat still feel they are judged and shamed by many others, despite this going out of the way. I mean, what else can we do if we're already going out of our way?

Perhaps this is something that needs to be specifically addressed by priesthood leaders with the individual.  It's an elephant in the room.

28 minutes ago, rongo said:

If people can't navigate and make peace with their real regret, after all we can do ---- what can we do?

I am not sure "all we can do" has been reached.

28 minutes ago, rongo said:

Consequences are inevitable, and cannot be wished away or completely assuaged by people going out of their way. I served as a counselor with a brother who left the MTC after a few days for no good reason. He didn't have anxiety or depression and wasn't unworthy; he just couldn't do it. It has haunted him his whole life, but he hasn't let it weigh him down or define him. His kids are good, and he has served in stake leadership callings. Yet, he still deeply regrets not going and coming home from the MTC. Nothing will take this away. I think the difference between him and those for whom this is shipwreck is that he truly did move on and didn't let it define him.

I am glad to hear about your friend.  I just wonder if there are things we can do to help similarly-situated brothers and sisters likewise avoid letting their "regret" define them.

And then there are those brothers and sisters who feel regret but oughtn't.  Who cannot serve a full-time mission for health reasons, but who nevertheless feel "less" (less valued, less valiant, whatever) for not having served.

28 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think we're already almost at capacity in the love and affection department, while realizing that perfection is impossible on earth and so there is always room for improvement. 

The "Mormon Nice" concept isn't insincere. We, culturally, are often so adamant about people never feeling uncomfortable that we couch things in euphemisms and fail to address things that need to be addressed. We are erring on the side of sparing feelings, which in the main is a good thing more than it isn't, but this comes at a cost sometimes. 

Hmm.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, ERMD said:

Since this comment was directed to presidents of visitor's centers, I took it to mean that the missionaries assigned there shouldn't focus on teaching about the history of the place (the facilities), but rather on the people and teaching them.

That was my take as well.

I would hope, however, that missionaries called to serve in these places would be knowledgeable enough to present the basic history and answer the occasional question accurately -- while focusing on teaching the people, of course.

[The Nehor]

While I apppreciate efforts to be inviting and forgiving sin is still going to drive people out no matter how nice we are.

If the Savior preaching the truth perfectly could not keep all of His followers we definitely cannot keep all our members. We should try but failure does not necessarily mean we failed.

Edited January 20, 2018 by The Nehor

[Duncan]

48 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

While I apppreciate efforts to be inviting and forgiving sin is going to drive people out no matter how nice we are.

If the Savior preaching the truth perfectly could not keep all of His followers we definitely cannot keep all our members. We should try but failure does not necessarily mean we failed.

I think it was Elder Neal A. Maxwell who said that the Church was like a ship that turns, if it turns too quickly members will blow off but if turns slowly, hopefully you can minimize the loss

[strappinglad]

I remember the story in the OT about how the Lord chose to separate the men from the boys by having them drink from the river and the method they chose to drink being the deciding factor as to whether they fought or not. Quite subtle wasn't it? Perhaps we could devise a way to find the true missionary . How about having a prospective missionary muck out a hog barn in the heat of summer ? Nah, not subtle enough!

I wonder what the pre-baptism protocol was in John the Baptist's day ?

[rchorse]

One area where there is definitely shaming going on for those who come home early is in the singles and dating scene. I have observed with friends and roommates the rejection that occurs when a male is not an RM. Many, if not most, LDS women will not even give them a shot, even when they're fully temple worthy. In the early twenties, that's pretty difficult to take. 

That said, I don't know how it could be changed. The church doesn't teach or encourage that, in my experience. But I think I agree with smac, that there are areas we could do better.

[Jeanne]

6 hours ago, rchorse said:

One area where there is definitely shaming going on for those who come home early is in the singles and dating scene. I have observed with friends and roommates the rejection that occurs when a male is not an RM. Many, if not most, LDS women will not even give them a shot, even when they're fully temple worthy. In the early twenties, that's pretty difficult to take. 

That said, I don't know how it could be changed. The church doesn't teach or encourage that, in my experience. But I think I agree with smac, that there are areas we could do better.

What a shame, in my view, these young women on missing out on some wonderful men.

[Jeanne]

9 hours ago, Duncan said:

I think it was Elder Neal A. Maxwell who said that the Church was like a ship that turns, if it turns too quickly members will blow off but if turns slowly, hopefully you can minimize the loss

I love the way he put that.  But if you go too slow...some will be impatient and just jump off.

Edited January 20, 2018 by Jeanne

[Scott Lloyd]

8 hours ago, rchorse said:

One area where there is definitely shaming going on for those who come home early is in the singles and dating scene. I have observed with friends and roommates the rejection that occurs when a male is not an RM. Many, if not most, LDS women will not even give them a shot, even when they're fully temple worthy. In the early twenties, that's pretty difficult to take. 

That said, I don't know how it could be changed. The church doesn't teach or encourage that, in my experience. But I think I agree with smac, that there are areas we could do better.

I don't know what, if anything, could or should be done about this. We all have or have had our individual criteria for mate selection. Each is entitled to make her or his own choice. On the other hand, each of us is apt to find we don't make the cut for a good many potential partners. Painful though it may be, that's the way it is in matters of the heart.

To be perfectly candid, if a young woman in my acquaintance is going to insist that those in her dating pool be returned missionaries, I will be disinclined to try to shame her out of it.

 

Edited January 20, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[The Nehor]

30 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't know what, if anything, could or should be done about this. We all have or have had our individual criteria for mate selection. Each is entitled to make her or his own choice. On the other hand, each of us is apt to find we don't make the cut for a good many potential partners. Painful though it may be, that's the way it is in matters of the heart.

To be perfectly candid, if a young woman in my acquaintance is going to insist that those in her dating pool be returned missionaries, I will be disinclined to try to shame her out of it.

 

I agree with this. 

[rchorse]

48 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't know what, if anything, could or should be done about this. We all have or have had our individual criteria for mate selection. Each is entitled to make her or his own choice. On the other hand, each of us is apt to find we don't make the cut for a good many potential partners. Painful though it may be, that's the way it is in matters of the heart.

To be perfectly candid, if a young woman in my acquaintance is going to insist that those in her dating pool be returned missionaries, I will be disinclined to try to shame her out of it.

 

I agree, as well, which is why I said I don't know how it could be changed. My main point was that being treated differently is not all in the early returnee's imagination. 

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, rchorse said:

I agree, as well, which is why I said I don't know how it could be changed. My main point was that being treated differently is not all in the early returnee's imagination. 

No, but a lot of it is. I could not tell you whether some of the church friends I have made since college have been on a mission or not. Of course these things matter a lot more when you are risking a lot on forming what is meant to be a permanent bond with someone else. I recall an apostle saying something to the effect that things will change for the better of the daughters of Zion will insist on a spouse who has served a mission. I have seen that go the wrong way though. I knew one sister in my YSA ward that was basically a gospel deadbeat who did nothing and insisted that would all change once she found an ultra-faithful RM who would lead her to zeal in the gospel. Surprise, none of the faithful RMs would go on more than a few dates with her. Last I heard she was still only semi-active and still single.

Then again what do I know? I might be far too picky myself.

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't know what, if anything, could or should be done about this. We all have or have had our individual criteria for mate selection. Each is entitled to make her or his own choice. On the other hand, each of us is apt to find we don't make the cut for a good many potential partners. Painful though it may be, that's the way it is in matters of the heart.

To be perfectly candid, if a young woman in my acquaintance is going to insist that those in her dating pool be returned missionaries, I will be disinclined to try to shame her out of it.

 

I wouldn't shame someone out of it,  but I did talk with my daughter about it.  We discussed how missions can be a great thing. You can learn so much. There are things there you really can't learn elsewhere easily.  

Then we discussed why some may not go on a mission. We discussed how it might affect their future. How some of the things that stopped them from going affect their future. 

Basically she decided that those who could go now, but were just choosing not to go were off the list for her. Those who couldn't or didn't go in the past would depend on what they are like now, what the consequences mean for their future, what the reasons mean for their future and of course, answers to prayer.

[Waylon]

My wife has told me many times she would not have married me had I not gone on a mission.  I don't know why, but this bothers me . . . I feel like my mission is between me and God, and I went on my mission for God, and having it be some sort of requirement for getting married somehow feels cheap.

Also, while I tried really hard on my mission, I was never very good at it, introvert that I am.  I guess I feel that it isn't a whole lot of a leap from saying "I will date only returned missionaries" to saying "I will date only returned missionaries who were good at what they were doing".

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Waylon said:

My wife has told me many times she would not have married me had I not gone on a mission.  I don't know why, but this bothers me . . . I feel like my mission is between me and God, and I went on my mission for God, and having it be some sort of requirement for getting married somehow feels cheap.

Also, while I tried really hard on my mission, I was never very good at it, introvert that I am.  I guess I feel that it isn't a whole lot of a leap from saying "I will date only returned missionaries" to saying "I will date only returned missionaries who were good at what they were doing".

It matters because if a man isn't putting God first, then he isn't the man many of us have looked/are looking for. Missions are a possible indicator of that. The problem comes when people use it as the only I dictator that matters. 

[Jeanne]

30 minutes ago, Rain said:

It matters because if a man isn't putting God first, then he isn't the man many of us have looked/are looking for. Missions are a possible indicator of that. The problem comes when people use it as the only I dictator that matters. 

But excuse the Osmonds??

[Rain]

3 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

But excuse the Osmonds??

I'm not sure what they have to do with my post? 

[Jeanne]

3 minutes ago, Rain said:

I'm not sure what they have to do with my post? 

I am not sure either really..just that I know that they were excused from missions and they did just fine!!  surely they did not put God first???

Edited January 20, 2018 by Jeanne

[Rain]

Like I said, "possible" indicator. Then I specifically pointed out that it can't be the only indicator.  

Your comment felt like a dig. I think I'm pretty fair on these kind of things usually. It bothered me that you would be making a dig at the church using my post when I try very hard to see both sides. If I am wrong then I apologize. 

[Vanguard]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

It matters because if a man isn't putting God first, then he isn't the man many of us have looked/are looking for. Missions are a possible indicator of that. The problem comes when people use it as the only I dictator that matters. 

But that's the problem. Crucial indicators go relatively unaddressed. I remember speaking with a bishop at BYU when I attended way back when. I had questions about a girl I was very interested in though she had a "checkered" past. His advice was to dispense with investigating her past and instead focus on my impressions about her "present". He commented that were his past to be scrutinized obsessively to the exclusion of his "present", his wife wouldn't have married him. He challenged me to take a look at the woman now. In her words & actions does she evidence a desire to serve Christ? Her fellowman? Was she kind? Did she attend church? You'll never hear the YW's program say in casual conversation, "If he doesn't evidence a love for his fellowman then he's out". IMO, that's one of the reasons why our own divorce stats sometimes rival that of the non-Mormon pop. It's too much about form over substance as an indicator of a successful marriage.

[Calm]

I think the reason I did and would care most about a man having gone on a mission for the full time prior to marriage is that it showed he probably could be very close roommates with someone he hadn't grown up with without going insane.  Living with roommates usually where you can take off whenever you care to just isn't even close to marriage.  Being locked into a companionship is closer.

Everything else that a mission could probably tell me about would also probably be evident over time as I talked to him (whether or not he was committed to his covenants, how comfortable he was with scripture study, how he approached doctrine and history, how comfortable he was with variations on the theme of faithfulness).  And given how I have always been aware that a mission doesn't guarantee those attributes and skills I would like to see in my spouse or the spouses of my children and grandchildren, friends, and neighbours, total strangers, at best a mission tells me there is a greater likelihood at seeing such...but in no way should looking for them and other desirables be skipped just because "mission" is present on a resume.

Edited January 21, 2018 by Calm