New Era: Recognizing That You Shouldn't Go On A Mission!

[Kenngo1969]

If it still needs to be shouted from the rooftops, given my extensive history of posting on this board and its predecessors, I have both a physical disability and a complex behavioral health history.  I was called on a conventional, two-year, proselyting mission; I went; I served; it was an honor and a privilege, but, also, it was the second-hardest thing I've ever done in my life (after law school, something else that, perhaps, I shouldn't have done, though I'm hard-pressed to figure out what I should have done instead besides answering phones ).

All of that having been said, I wonder if, under today's "raised-bar" standards, a role might have been tailored for me somewhere in the vineyard to which I might have been better-suited, perhaps one that involved proselyting part of the time while being allowed to use my communication skills and other talents (such as they are; I mean, all ya'all know that, Alas!, I can't put together a single coherent sentence, right? ) the rest of the time.

I've posted this here, before, too, many times, but in case someone reading the thread hasn't seen it . . . : https://www.lds.org/new-era/1993/02/we-did-it?lang=eng 

 

[bluebell]

16 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

"In 1945, Monson joined the United States Naval Reserve and anticipated participating in World War II in the Pacific theater.^[1] He was sent to San Diego, California, for training, but was not stationed overseas before the end of the war. His tour of duty lasted six months beyond the end of the war, then he returned to the University of Utah. Monson graduated cum laude in 1948 with a bachelor's degreein business management.^[13] Monson did not serve a mission as a youth. At age 21, on October 7, 1948, he married Frances Beverly Johnson in the Salt Lake Temple.^[14] The couple eventually had three children: Thomas Lee, Ann Frances, and Clark Spencer.

After college he rejoined the Naval Reserve with the aim of becoming an officer. Shortly after receiving his commission acceptance letter, his local bishop asked him to serve as a counselor in the bishopric.^[14] Time conflicts with bishopric meetings would have made Navy service impossible. After discussion with church apostle Harold B. Lee (his former stake president), Monson declined the commission and applied for a discharge. The Navy granted his discharge in the last group processed before the Korean War.^[15] Lee set him apart six months later as a bishop—mentioning in the blessing that he likely would not have been called if he had accepted the commission.^[16][15]"

Me: There was a window of time that he could have served a mission. The war ended in 1945 and he served six months more. So he would have been around 18 or 19. He returned to the U of U, and then married at age 21. 

Yep, it definitely looks like it.

[mrmarklin]

6 hours ago, cinepro said:

The current issue of the New Era has an interesting and, as far as I know, unprecedented article.

It is an article explaining to young women that are thinking of serving a mission how to know if they are being inspired not to serve a mission.

Sister To Sister

So the obvious question is why this article is only "Sister to Sister"?  Is it impossible for young men to also have the same questions and answers?

The Church really wants the young women to breed.  As soon as possible. 

[Tacenda]

27 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Yep, it definitely looks like it.

And Pres. Nelson and Eyring both could have served as well, but instead went to school.

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, mrmarklin said:

The Church really wants the young women to breed.  As soon as possible. 

Yes, The Family: A Proclamation to the World solemnly reaffirms that the Lord's command to multiply and replenish the earth is still in force.  That said, I don't know if this is what you intend by using the word "breed," but of course, a woman is much, much more than her reproductive capacity.  I think it's fairer and more accurate to say that the Lord has said that marriage and child-rearing should not be delayed unduly.  And of course, see also Mosiah 4:27.  Every individual's circumstance is different (e.g., some who earnestly desire marriage are not presented with such an opportunity) and every couple's situation is different: Each couple should carefully and prayerfully consider their individual responsibility in light of The Family: A Proclamation to the World and should respond appropriately to the guidance they receive.

Edited August 23, 2018 by Kenngo1969

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

After he got home from the navy, I think he was still in the reserves until he was 25 or 26.  He could not have served during that time.  

You can be in the reserves and still serve a mission.  You have to get an exemption, but it happens.  One of the young men in my mission (1970's) was in the Utah National Guard at the time (in fact, he was a Green Beret, as I understood it).

[bluebell]

45 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

And Pres. Nelson and Eyring both could have served as well, but instead went to school.

Yes, there were a few apostles that didn’t serve. It wasn’t considered a priesthood responsibility to serve until a few decades ago. 

[Tacenda]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Yes, there were a few apostles that didn’t serve. It wasn’t considered a priesthood responsibility to serve until a few decades ago. 

Yes, I get that it probably wasn't stated as a PH responsibility at the time, I guess. I did read several stories of many young men that gave up careers to go on missions but then picked them up again and did well, such as athletes. Of course these were all LDS links such as LDSLiving and LDS.org. I do wonder how many young men sacrificed careers, as athletes or in other fields that did not have the positive results though.

I'm sure these elderly LDS leaders etc. that didn't serve, now wonder what they missed by not serving while younger. Of course many served missions late in life. Maybe that's why they want that for the LDS youth now.

Edited August 23, 2018 by Tacenda

[Kenngo1969]

16 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

You can be in the reserves and still serve a mission.  You have to get an exemption, but it happens.  One of the young men in my mission (1970's) was in the Utah National Guard at the time (in fact, he was a Green Beret, as I understood it).

Wow.    

Good on him, on both counts!  

[sunstoned]

9 hours ago, cinepro said:

It is an article explaining to young women that are thinking of serving a mission how to know if they are being inspired not to serve a mission.

Quote

I wanted a mission to be right for me. I prayed. I talked to my bishop. I counseled with my parents. I read my scriptures. I received a father’s blessing. But I continued to feel anxious and overwhelmed about serving a mission. It wasn’t until I finally made the decision not to serve a mission that I found the peaceful feeling I had been searching for.

Sister To Sister

So the obvious question is why this article is only "Sister to Sister"?  Is it impossible for young men to also have the same questions and answers?

I felt anxious and overwhelmed about serving a mission.  But for a young mormon man in  the 70's, there was a lot of pressure to go.  So I did.

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, cinepro said:

The current issue of the New Era has an interesting and, as far as I know, unprecedented article.

It is an article explaining to young women that are thinking of serving a mission how to know if they are being inspired not to serve a mission.

Sister To Sister

So the obvious question is why this article is only "Sister to Sister"?  Is it impossible for young men to also have the same questions and answers?

Mentally unbalanced members should clearly not serve, and there is a hint of that here, in this case.  So, yes, it should apply equally to men -- who are probably less mature and less able generally to serve missions.  Half of all LDS missionaries now are female, which has never been true in the past, and female missionaries tend to be far more successful than males.  It seems cynical, but perhaps a reasonable question to ask whether this article is designed to reduce the popularity among young women for a mission.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

I felt anxious and overwhelmed about serving a mission.  But for a young mormon man in  the 70's, there was a lot of pressure to go.  So I did.

In retrospect, should you have gone on that mission? If you had to do it over again, would you?

[sunstoned]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

And Pres. Nelson and Eyring both could have served as well, but instead went to school.

D. Oaks also did not serve.  There are no RMs in the first presidency.

[sunstoned]

11 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

In retrospect, should you have gone on that mission? If you had to do it over again, would you?

A lot of water has gone under the bridge since then. I resigned my membership in November of 2015, but my mission experience has become part of who I am.   I had a successful mission.  I worked very hard and saw many people baptized.  It would be silly for me to try to reorder a life already lived. 

Edited August 23, 2018 by sunstoned

[BonhoefferFan]

18 hours ago, cinepro said:

So the obvious question is why this article is only "Sister to Sister"?  Is it impossible for young men to also have the same questions and answers?

Why not?  I know more than a few peers (including myself) who never went on a mission because it was not the right decision at the time.  This was 20 years ago. 

[churchistrue]

18 hours ago, cinepro said:

The current issue of the New Era has an interesting and, as far as I know, unprecedented article.

It is an article explaining to young women that are thinking of serving a mission how to know if they are being inspired not to serve a mission.

Sister To Sister

So the obvious question is why this article is only "Sister to Sister"?  Is it impossible for young men to also have the same questions and answers?

I don't like it. I'd like equal treatment on this for girls and boys. 

[BlueDreams]

16 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

The traditional problem is that of course a lot of people gain their testimonies in the MTC or in the field. Those people might never have gone on a mission and had those experiences had there not been some pressure to go. It's a really difficult balancing act. You don't want non-missionariest to be treated as second class citizens which has the incentive of pushing them away from the Church. Yet you also don't want to have no responsibility for a mission. As for women, I kind of wish there were more expectation for those able to go.

Yes, I get the point. I think I was curious because the sense of commandment to it nearly had my brother leaving the church as people nudged him to being a missionary. A lot of people over-focused on being a missionary and because of this, it maintained a blindspot about his struggles with anxiety and being overwhelmed with his daily life. I was the only one for a while who would tell him I didn't want to talk to him about a mission, even though of course I think it would be good for him to go as an RM myself....but that there are more important things. Like knowing our savior and understanding your faith and working through your difficulties. It was because I didn't push mission that he began to get back on board with church and we were able to have some good spiritual experiences and discussions together.  

I don't know if there is a right balance in all this. I'm sure any one way could lead to negative consequences for our youth. I just wish that the goal of a mission was less likely to overshadow less overt goals. 

14 hours ago, CV75 said:

I do, but that's not the same thing.

 

I think the assumption is that young men and young women are the same in all covenants and ordinances, with just one exception (ordination to priesthood office). I think that forms the basis for this article being geared toward the questions young women might have about serving a mission.  The conferral of priesthood power, authority and order come to both young men and young women in the same way, with the exception of men additionally needing the laying on of hands before ordination to office (both men and women need laying on of hands under priesthood authority to exercise any other delegated authority). It could be said that "faith in it" and the resulting righteousness and grace are what constitute priesthood "power" for both young women and young men; priesthood and moral authority require the same level of righteousness for both young men and young women; and priesthood order comes by virtue of being sealed, whether by birth, adoption or to a spouse (for those who qualify for temple marriage).

I don't know if this really answers my question. It's an assumption of difference based on later revelation/command. It doesn't float for me because I knew at age 14 that I would be serving a mission. My PB described my responsibility in preaching the gospel as "grave responsibilities" tied near my declaration of my tribe/place in the house of Israel. If I were a boy, no one would have doubted that it meant I needed to serve a mission. Because I was a teen girl/woman over the years, several assumed that I'd change my mind. My desire seemed more quaint. A good chunk of people assumed I'd be married by then or engaged. I would tell people I'm going to serve a mission and they would say "wait and see....you're still so young." Of course this was before the age change, i get the sense that that has definitely changed for younger women. I just hope there can be some sort of balance of our young men as well for those not ready to serve at 18 or 19.

 

With luv,

BD 

[Storm Rider]

12 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

The Church really wants the young women to breed.  As soon as possible. 

Oh, how cute. Such a profound statement. Though long and hard I suspect to produce such a wonder of erudition. But, let's just think about it for a few moments....at least longer than it took to create such a canned response. 

What is the value of a single human life - say yours, for example? Who should raise such as yourself or for any human? Is love required or do we just turn you out to the village to raise if they got it in their mind to care for you from being an infant to your current, learned age? 

The Church of Jesus does actually teach that the best method of raising children is for a man and woman - that is the only way we get that baby, that human to enter this world - to be committed to one another and agree to raise children in a stable home. As humans, we breed cattle, horses, and pigs, but we tend to think that raising humans demands more from both male and female. However, we also understand that no child enters this world without a mother. There is no urgency to reproduce, contrary to your little snippet of thoughtlessness, but there is a teaching that male and female be committed to the process and are formally married. 

It is true that you cannot teach stupidity, but it does amaze at how often we see such evidence that our educational system continues to fail individuals. 

[Storm Rider]

I don't think a mission is for everyone - male or female. It would be nice if everyone were capable and in a spiritual place which enabled serving a mission, but it is not reality. I think it takes a specific kind of individual to be able to serve just as it takes a specific kind of individual to be a sculptor or an artist or a mechanic or a dentist. 

Expectations of others can have negative consequences and yet expectations can have really positive results. I guess the expectation should be viewed as a discussion between an individual and their bishop and God. It should not be one between a congregation's members and the individual. This idea of members keeping comments to themselves carries into many topics: when a couple is having a child or not having a child; when an individual is getting married or not getting married; when an individual is getting baptized or not. In fact, I think there is probably a whole lot of areas where we need to learn to hold our tongue and just not comment or question. 

[CV75]

15 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

This is not true. Young men serving missions is a long-standing Church policy, not part of his priesthood duty.

We teach incorrect principles of what the priesthood is when we connect it to policy that clearly changes.

More explicitly, it is part of the duties of his priesthood office (see D&C 20: 38-67 about offices, which refers to the first and foremost calling to baptize, which  requires missionary work; also describes the attendant duties, licenses, certificates, etc.).

[CV75]

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

Yes, I get the point. I think I was curious because the sense of commandment to it nearly had my brother leaving the church as people nudged him to being a missionary. A lot of people over-focused on being a missionary and because of this, it maintained a blindspot about his struggles with anxiety and being overwhelmed with his daily life. I was the only one for a while who would tell him I didn't want to talk to him about a mission, even though of course I think it would be good for him to go as an RM myself....but that there are more important things. Like knowing our savior and understanding your faith and working through your difficulties. It was because I didn't push mission that he began to get back on board with church and we were able to have some good spiritual experiences and discussions together.  

I don't know if there is a right balance in all this. I'm sure any one way could lead to negative consequences for our youth. I just wish that the goal of a mission was less likely to overshadow less overt goals. 

I don't know if this really answers my question. It's an assumption of difference based on later revelation/command. It doesn't float for me because I knew at age 14 that I would be serving a mission. My PB described my responsibility in preaching the gospel as "grave responsibilities" tied near my declaration of my tribe/place in the house of Israel. If I were a boy, no one would have doubted that it meant I needed to serve a mission. Because I was a teen girl/woman over the years, several assumed that I'd change my mind. My desire seemed more quaint. A good chunk of people assumed I'd be married by then or engaged. I would tell people I'm going to serve a mission and they would say "wait and see....you're still so young." Of course this was before the age change, i get the sense that that has definitely changed for younger women. I just hope there can be some sort of balance of our young men as well for those not ready to serve at 18 or 19. 

 

With luv,

BD 

I agree that sometimes there are insensitive pressures put upon young men. I think this is unfortunate. I know of instances where the priesthood leadership felt, along with the young man and family, that serving a mission was not to be, or that more fitting accommodations to serve should be recommended (and were, and then approved).

I think the way people treated you as a girl reflects the other side of the “faddish pressure” I was alluding to. D&C 4 (especially verse 3) is meant for everyone, and while the “work” therein is very organized when it comes to priesthood office, that should not discourage young women from acting on those desires and patriarchal blessings. I don’t see the emphasis (which can be insensitively leveraged into pressure) that is placed on young men as "faddish," but a result of duty and certainly tradition (which sometimes can be a two-edged sword).

[The Nehor]

I do not see this as shocking. The apostles have come down hard on killing any attempt to pressure young women to serve missions. I had a friend when I was young whose Bishop pushed her towards a mission a little beyond just encouragement. He was told to “cut it out”. When asked about many RM men only wanting to date returned sister missionaries the counsel was to tell those guys to “knock it off”.

[CV75]

14 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks for sharing.  I like how candid the story is about a person exploring this big decision.  It certainly should apply to men as well, but I don’t think the culture is mature enough for that step.  Men like rites of passage too much, and the church as an institution can’t afford to back away from it because getting people on missions is a retention tool and a conversion tool at the same time.  

Its different for girls because of the message of motherhood the church is trying to reinforce and that prioitization for women helps to keep patriarchy going.  

D&C 20 is not outlining a cultural rite of passage, but is where the connection between priesthood office and missionary service is defined (most centrally in verse 38). As for "patriarchy," see verse 18-19.

[The Nehor]

15 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks for sharing.  I like how candid the story is about a person exploring this big decision.  It certainly should apply to men as well, but I don’t think the culture is mature enough for that step.  Men like rites of passage too much, and the church as an institution can’t afford to back away from it because getting people on missions is a retention tool and a conversion tool at the same time.  

Its different for girls because of the message of motherhood the church is trying to reinforce and that prioitization for women helps to keep patriarchy going.  

Yeah, if we let too many go on missions they would get all uppity and soon we would no longer be able to keep them barefoot and pregnant 24/7. Can’t be too careful.

[CV75]

12 hours ago, bluebell said:

Yes, there were a few apostles that didn’t serve. It wasn’t considered a priesthood responsibility to serve until a few decades ago. 

We do not know their history, or that they may have repented of a decision not to go... I think they would agree that D&C 20 is the basis for missionary work being a responsibility of the priesthood office(s).