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

[BlueDreams]

8 minutes ago, CV75 said:

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).

 

I don't know if the pressure put on men is any less "faddish" than what's placed on women. Looking at the verses you mentioned it says this:

3 Therefore, if ye have desires to serve God ye are called to the work;

It's based in individual desire to serve God, not on custom and/or social duty. I don't think its faddish that all that want to serve God need to think very seriously about how they must then serve their fellow man and share the gospel. I'm saying there probably needs to be more recognition that when and how may vary and may not be a one-size fits all experience. 

 

With luv,

BD

[SouthernMo]

44 minutes ago, CV75 said:

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.).

Not sure I see what you're seeing in those verses.  Licenses and certificates here do not refer to any missionary license; at the time of the revelation, all Melchizedek priesthood holders were given licenses regardless if they were called on full-time missions or not.  Today, men are still given certificates of ordination.  I believe that those are the proxies for licenses we use today.

In your connection of the duty to baptize with the duty to serve a full-time mission, the scripture does not appear to support your claim.  In verse 46, we are taught that "the priest's duty is to ... baptize."  So are priests not fulfilling their priesthood duties between ages 16-18 because they are not serving full-time missions?  It doesn't make sense to me.

Missionary work is something that all members have been called to do as practitioners and holders of the priesthood.  I don't think for a minute that we are excused from sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ with others.  BUT, I don't believe that serving a full-time mission is a priesthood duty.  It's a policy.

[Scott Lloyd]

20 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?

So, despite the tantalizing, and craftily worded thread title, there’s really nothing new here. Just a reminder that young women needn’t feel obligated to serve missions, served up with a few suggestions of how a young woman might determine whether a mission is right for her. 

In other words, business as usual. 

The thread title is what’s known in today’s parlance as “click bait” — or in yesterday’s as sensationalism. 

[bluebell]

46 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I don't know if the pressure put on men is any less "faddish" than what's placed on women. Looking at the verses you mentioned it says this:

3 Therefore, if ye have desires to serve God ye are called to the work;

It's based in individual desire to serve God, not on custom and/or social duty. I don't think its faddish that all that want to serve God need to think very seriously about how they must then serve their fellow man and share the gospel. I'm saying there probably needs to be more recognition that when and how may vary and may not be a one-size fits all experience. 

 

With luv,

BD

I think sometimes a clarification on 'desire' in this verse is necessary.

I had NEVER wanted to serve a mission growing up and I did NOT want to serve when I put my papers in.  However, I knew (absolutely knew) that going on a mission was God's will for me, so I went (and it was amazing and the best thing and I'm so glad that I listened to Him!).

So one can not want to serve a mission but understand that serving God means going on a mission anyway, if that is His will for you.

[Duncan]

11 hours ago, Tacenda said:

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

I think, if my math adds up, that Pres. Nelson was 19 in 1943 when they weren't calling nearly as many missionaries and Pres. Eyring is six months younger than my Dad but the Korean War got in the way of missionaries serving in larger numbers. Mind you I met a guy in LA, he was a Bishop in one of the wards I served who also was 18 or 19 in the early 1950's. He said he didn't want to go to Korea so he decided to serve a mission instead! he didn't want to serve a mission really either but he did that instead

[CV75]

3 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I don't know if the pressure put on men is any less "faddish" than what's placed on women. Looking at the verses you mentioned it says this:

3 Therefore, if ye have desires to serve God ye are called to the work;

It's based in individual desire to serve God, not on custom and/or social duty. I don't think its faddish that all that want to serve God need to think very seriously about how they must then serve their fellow man and share the gospel. I'm saying there probably needs to be more recognition that when and how may vary and may not be a one-size fits all experience. 

 

With luv,

BD

The faddishness I’m referring to is not about an individual’s desire to serve (or not) or her (or his) need to prayerfully consider serving (or not), but about the popularized pressures from others to serve or not to serve. At one time it was faddish for women not to serve missions (which ignores D&C 4 and reflects the pressure you described experiencing); today it is faddish to serve one (which also oddly ignored D&C 4), as evidenced by the experiences shared in this article. Certainly, those leaders who don’t recognize a young person’s desire and prayerful decision, or their actual capacity to serve, need to do so.

I think the “pressure” on young men (once it comes to that) is a misplaced application of the duties of priesthood office, which I don’t take to be, according to revelation, a product of customs or social mores. I suspect we’re saying the same thing (?). The 12-14-16-18 age eligibility for the various offices may facilitate carelessness or superficiality in the expectation and decision for some parents, friends and leaders, but that is what I think we’re saying ultimate confirmation by the Spirit for the youth to seek and the leader to issue the calling is for.

I think the offices as a priesthood structure are by design and definition “one size fits all” (there are only so many offices for hundreds of thousands of individuals to co-occupy). The individual, inspired motivation described in D&C 4 is as infinitely varied as the personalities of God’s children, and of course our calling to any office or assignment is supposed to come by revelation and be just as focused on the individual as any other covenant extended to us.

While the decision to serve a mission is based in individual desire a) to serve and b) specifically to serve a mission, there are many other facets to the “the work” that might be better for those who a) decide not, or b) are not called, to serve a mission. Some of these activities can be assumed (“anxiously engaged… of their own free will”), and some require a formal calling and laying on of hands within the priesthood structure.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

Not sure I see what you're seeing in those verses.  Licenses and certificates here do not refer to any missionary license; at the time of the revelation, all Melchizedek priesthood holders were given licenses regardless if they were called on full-time missions or not.  Today, men are still given certificates of ordination.  I believe that those are the proxies for licenses we use today.

In your connection of the duty to baptize with the duty to serve a full-time mission, the scripture does not appear to support your claim.  In verse 46, we are taught that "the priest's duty is to ... baptize."  So are priests not fulfilling their priesthood duties between ages 16-18 because they are not serving full-time missions?  It doesn't make sense to me.

Missionary work is something that all members have been called to do as practitioners and holders of the priesthood.  I don't think for a minute that we are excused from sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ with others.  BUT, I don't believe that serving a full-time mission is a priesthood duty.  It's a policy.

My comment was to show that young men serving full-time (or part-time) missions is in fulfillment of his priesthood [office] duty. Even if that office is part of the "preparatory" priesthood and the full-time (or part-time) mission is in its "preparatory" phase as they carry out the duties of their preparatory offices along the way.

There are some D&C sections that speak to individuals being called to serve full-time missions, and each of these held an office. None did not hold an office. This takes nothing away from the responsibility of members or the invitation in D&C 4.

Of course extending the call to full-time mission can be governed both by policy and scripturally-defined duty. I'm not sure how you're not making the connection between apostle, baptism and missionary work (verse 37). An apostle's primary responsibility was preaching with an aim to baptize, and members with proselyting responsibilities were referred to apostles. "Apostle" in these instances means "missionary,"especially in Joseph Smith's day (see Webster's Dictionary, 1828): " A person deputed to execute some important business; but appropriately, a disciple of Christ commissioned to preach the gospel."

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, BonhoefferFan said:

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. 

You are in good company. Pres Monson did not go on a mission, and neither did I.  It is not compulsory.

[SouthernMo]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

My comment was to show that young men serving full-time (or part-time) missions is in fulfillment of his priesthood [office] duty. Even if that office is part of the "preparatory" priesthood and the full-time (or part-time) mission is in its "preparatory" phase as they carry out the duties of their preparatory offices along the way.

There are some D&C sections that speak to individuals being called to serve full-time missions, and each of these held an office. None did not hold an office. This takes nothing away from the responsibility of members or the invitation in D&C 4.

Of course extending the call to full-time mission can be governed both by policy and scripturally-defined duty. I'm not sure how you're not making the connection between apostle, baptism and missionary work (verse 37). An apostle's primary responsibility was preaching with an aim to baptize, and members with proselyting responsibilities were referred to apostles. "Apostle" in these instances means "missionary,"especially in Joseph Smith's day (see Webster's Dictionary, 1828): " A person deputed to execute some important business; but appropriately, a disciple of Christ commissioned to preach the gospel."

I see a difference between missionary work and serving a full time mission.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

I see a difference between missionary work and serving a full time mission.

Completely? Absolutely no overlap ever?

I suppose you can serve a full-time mission and not do any missionary work!  

But that does not define them as having a difference that precludes serving a full-time mission as a duty of the office of elder (for males at least). Having that office and serving a full-time mission entails the operation of priesthood quorums and officers that delegate keys from the First Presidency, and this requires the elder to receive those servants (see "the oath and covenant" described in D&C 84), including accepting the call to serve a full-time mission, which has been extended to young men generally and specifically since the days of D&C 20.

 

[rongo]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You are in good company. Pres Monson did not go on a mission, and neither did I.  It is not compulsory.

Not only that, but my stake president, during my mission interview, practically grabbed me by the lapels and commanded me get the most out of every bit of it. He wanted to serve a mission but wasn't called. In his day, simply wanting to go and being worthy and prepared didn't mean you actually went. Some were called, and some were not. He was very emotional about it, and the message was, "Don't you botch this! I would have given my right arm to go."

Our culture of every boy going is relatively recent in the scheme of things. I think it's a good thing (Wilford Woodruff said, "We learn the gospel by shoe leather"), but it hasn't always been that way. 

[SouthernMo]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

which has been extended to young men generally and specifically since the days of D&C 20.

This just isn’t true. Those demographics of men and people called to serve missions, and the policies of calling young men to go have changed since 1829.

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Completely? Absolutely no overlap ever?

 I suppose you can serve a full-time mission and not do any missionary work!  

There certainly can be overlap. There doesn’t have to be. To answer your second point, I suppose that you can do missionary work without serving a full-time mission.

So if you really believe that serving a full-time mission at age 19 or 18 is a priesthood duty, would you condemn each member of the first presidency for not fulfilling their priesthood duties?

Of course you wouldn’t!  In the Venn diagram of a full time mission and missionary work, there can be overlap, but they are not synonymous.

[CV75]

40 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

This just isn’t true. Those demographics of men and people called to serve missions, and the policies of calling young men to go have changed since 1829.

There certainly can be overlap. There doesn’t have to be. To answer your second point, I suppose that you can do missionary work without serving a full-time mission.

So if you really believe that serving a full-time mission at age 19 or 18 is a priesthood duty, would you condemn each member of the first presidency for not fulfilling their priesthood duties?

Of course you wouldn’t!  In the Venn diagram of a full time mission and missionary work, there can be overlap, but they are not synonymous.

Demographics and policies can change but the principle that a full-time mission is a duty of the office of elder hasn’t changed from D&C 20. Even if you insist it has changed, acknowledge that it came by way of those who have the keys to make that change, so the principle stands as legitimate.

Psst: they can also be synonymous (precisely where the Venn diagram overlaps, for heaven's sake!). Time to drop that straw man.

[SouthernMo]

5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Psst: they can also be synonymous (precisely where the Venn diagram overlaps, for heaven's sake!). Time to drop that straw man.

Yes - I have agreed. They can be synonymous. But I doubt you believe that.

If you served a full time mission, would you say your priesthood duty to missionary work is done?

And - what do you think?  Do you condemn the first presidency?  None of them served full time missions as young men.  Are they negligent in their priesthood responsibilities to missionary work?

I think there is room for their fulfillment of their priesthood duties to missionary work despite not having served. But - what do you think?

[BonhoefferFan]

13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You are in good company. Pres Monson did not go on a mission, and neither did I.  It is not compulsory. 

Agreed.  I do not see what the issue is.

[CV75]

12 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

Yes - I have agreed. They can be synonymous. But I doubt you believe that.

If you served a full time mission, would you say your priesthood duty to missionary work is done?

And - what do you think?  Do you condemn the first presidency?  None of them served full time missions as young men.  Are they negligent in their priesthood responsibilities to missionary work?

I think there is room for their fulfillment of their priesthood duties to missionary work despite not having served. But - what do you think? 

I am not too interested in taking the conversation beyond the singular distinction between the pressures on young women and young men to serve full-time missions (which topic was brought up because of the New Era article). In a negative sense, we have the pressure of a fad that overlooks the divine motivations to serve and the inspiration to extend the call or accept the call. This affects both young women and young men. In a positive sense, we have the expectation that comes from the Lord, which He uniquely expresses in the duties of priesthood office (the one distinction between young men and women) as well as generally in the promptings anyone can receive.

I’ve addressed your questions in my previous posts, which also contributes to my lack of interest. But for one last time:

The priesthood duty of my office includes missionary work, including a full-time mission if called. I do not condemn others for not serving a full-time mission because 1) I’m not so inclined; 2) I haven’t key keys to judge them; 3) I do not know their circumstances even if I were so inclined. I think the fulfillment of a full-time mission, as with any duty of priesthood office, entails performing that which we are called and assigned to do in alignment with our leaders and the Lord. Anything we do outside of that is outside of duty per D&C 58:27-29 and is perfectly fine as far as I’m concerned. D&C 20 (duty) and D&C 58 (initiative) are not the same thing.