Jump to content

Uptick in GenZ / Millennial apostasy?


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

 

For what it's worth, I think what 2BizE is referring to is President Nelson's efforts to attempt to get people to use the full name of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and to avoid omitting the name of Jesus Christ from the short form, Church of Jesus Christ.

Yes, I know, thanks.

It was a joke, based on taking a quote out of context and then using the words to deliberately mislead.

I do not like certain news agencies 

Link to comment
9 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

But speaking personally, I freakin' love it when I meet fellow Christians who are enjoying some of the same things that I have come to experience as a Latter-day Saint. Having something in common to talk about brings us closer together and introduces an element of shared joy into our friendship that is otherwise missing. I wish this happened more often than it does, but I rejoice every time it happens!

Quote

Ditto!

9 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

n my opinion, the most miraculous thing that God does is to change my stubborn, rebellious heart/nature. Without Him, it's impossible. Even with Him, it feels borderline impossible, and yet He still pulls it off. We live in a world that increasingly preaches that people can't change who they are (and even tries to legislate against the opposite), and yet Christ has changed me in essential ways. I no longer want things I used to want desperately. I now love things that previously felt like terrible burdens. Who I am has fundamentally changed. And this hasn't been a one-off, either; He keeps sanctifying me.

Ditto again!

Link to comment
9 hours ago, 2BizE said:

You are correct Kenngo. I am referring to President Nelson’s campaign against the use of the word Mormon to refer to the church.  Keep in mind the previous campaign a few years prior to promote the use of the word Mormon to refer to the members of the church in the I’m a Mormon campaign.

Where I live, this attempt is rather fruitless. Among the Mexican mestizos, Mormons and Mennonites will always be Mormons and Mennonites. Each word refers to a religion, an ethnicity, a race, and a culture. It is also sometimes used in a pejorative sense because there remains a significant amount of ill will towards both groups over loss of land, water, class status, etc. It isn't really a religious thing, but it is definitely a cultural and class thing. I have often been told I can't be either Mennonite or Mormon because I am North American! Go figure! All cultures seem to need to divide people up into certain groupings.

Link to comment
9 hours ago, secondclasscitizen said:

You didn’t even address my response prob cuz I’m right. 
 

if you are going to call my family “a bunch of self righteous, judgemental pricks” you need to make sure to include my bishop, seminary teacher and priesthood leaders. They were just as bad. 
 

tough to let bygones be bygones when it is still brought up by family. 
 

nice post by the way. If you don’t like my answers you are free to quit responding. 

Okay.  I'll keep that in mind.  The sad thing is that, our respective attitudes toward the Church of Jesus Christ aside, you might well find that you and I probably have more in common than you realize if you were willing to explore that possibility, but I suppose, if your main (sole?) purpose in being here is to call out everybody in the Church of Jesus Christ who has wronged you, there is no room for that.

I wish you well.

Edited by Kenngo1969
Link to comment
On 9/18/2021 at 10:30 AM, Navidad said:

Not sure at all what this means? Living as a committed Evangelical is both spiritually and intellectually challenging and stimulating. It carries with it significant responsibilities and challenges to be a vital part of the physical and visible presence of God on earth in this dispensation. Easy? I think not. Obviously, just my lived experience and conviction.

From what i've seen of them, I'd disagree.  Also, to my knowledge you guys don't have the same baptism, catechism/confirmation, etc say trinitarians have.  From the LDS end you don't have the same things like WOW, the callings and what not.  Biggest thing of all, the political games and the at times horrible racism i've seen from Evangelicals makes me absolutely sick.  I've usually associated that with WASP-ish privilege which I'm also seeing with the horrible lash out from red country.  Keep in mind at the end of the day i'm a cultural Christian, view Christianity in the USA in general as a business/arm of the establishment (Esp the red/conservative end) as well as a polarizing element.  I know people love to run off at the mouth about "blessed are those who are persecuted for my sake" until riots happen and the likes of antifa pay them and theirs a visit then once more the privilege card gets played.  Also, I do tend to act and vote much more along a leftist line so added in with our differences my guess is we live in very different worlds.  Also because of poltiics I do tend to judge certain Christian groups here much harsher than I would say a Korean Church or ones overseas.  Until I am given a good reason, that's how my default judgements tend to be, after how my life has been and how i've been treated that's just how I do things.

Link to comment
49 minutes ago, poptart said:

From what i've seen of them, I'd disagree.  Also, to my knowledge you guys don't have the same baptism, catechism/confirmation, etc say trinitarians have.  From the LDS end you don't have the same things like WOW, the callings and what not.  Biggest thing of all, the political games and the at times horrible racism i've seen from Evangelicals makes me absolutely sick.  I've usually associated that with WASP-ish privilege which I'm also seeing with the horrible lash out from red country.  Keep in mind at the end of the day i'm a cultural Christian, view Christianity in the USA in general as a business/arm of the establishment (Esp the red/conservative end) as well as a polarizing element.  I know people love to run off at the mouth about "blessed are those who are persecuted for my sake" until riots happen and the likes of antifa pay them and theirs a visit then once more the privilege card gets played.  Also, I do tend to act and vote much more along a leftist line so added in with our differences my guess is we live in very different worlds.  Also because of poltiics I do tend to judge certain Christian groups here much harsher than I would say a Korean Church or ones overseas.  Until I am given a good reason, that's how my default judgements tend to be, after how my life has been and how i've been treated that's just how I do things.

I explained my response and perspective as being from my lived experience. Not exactly sure how you can disagree with that since you don't know me?

I don't know what you mean by "the same baptism?" I have baptized many people, only by immersion and only after having at least six weeks of pre-baptism classes. I never stressed church membership, so that was not associated with baptism. We don't use the terms catechism or confirmation, but we certainly have a time of training (classes), observation, and Q and A prior to baptism. A meeting is held with all elders prior to baptism and the candidate must be approved as ready before baptism is done. The candidate must then provide a public witness in front of the entire congregation prior to baptism. The candidate was encouraged to make certain commitments or covenants, none of which had anything to do with the church - they were all Christ-centered. We certainly have a WOW. The one I lived and to some degree still live under was more lifestyle conformity, rather than food or drink (other than alcohol). No creeds.

We have an extensive understanding of callings. We both ordain and in some cases license folks to different ministries. As a older youth (20 years old), I did a mission in west Africa. I was later licensed upon being called to a ministry of work with youth and music in several churches. Later I was ordained in certain callings after an extensive time of examination and training. Later I was licensed to serve, after being called as a headmaster of a Christian school. This license was valid as long as I was in that position and in good standing. I was paid just as the Director of the Juarez Stake Academy is paid.

I am completely and adamantly against political games and racism. In fact I am opposed to isms of all kinds from racism to racialization, ableism, to credalisms, normalizing, generalizing, othering, classism, and on and on. I tend to be conservative theologically and liberal in social justice. I see no conflict whatsoever between the two. Almost every Evangelical I know would testify to a similar life experience and commitment. I am sure there are racist Evangelicals, just as there are racist members of the LDS church, Catholics, and Pentecostals. I would not associate with anyone of that ilk, regardless of the professed faith. 

I also have an insatiable need to know and understand, hence my wife and my full-time participation in an LDS ward for more than four years now.

Having served in senior positions in, and worked with large urban public school districts, I probably have more leftist-leaning friends than conservative, but I have plenty of both. I am an equal opportunity friend. I am a Mennonite so I am pretty much opposed to all violence from wherever it originates. That is enough of my journey. Someday maybe we can meet and chat.

Link to comment
On 9/17/2021 at 7:21 PM, rongo said:

I met my wife at the Sears call center in Provo, Utah (East Bay, actually). We fielded calls about problems with Sears appliances, and scheduled repair work. While one could get the impression from our job that Kenmore products were terrible (every time a call came through, it involved problems), we realized that 100% of the calls we took were problems. People didn't call to tell us that they were having no problems, that everything was working well, etc. 

Aware of this (that anecdotal evidence and experience does not represent the reality of the overall picture), my wife and I have noticed an increasing and intensifying increase in apostasy among young adults in their 20s and 30s. This general trend has long been discussed and worried about among youth (e.g., anecdotal experience in our stakes, mission age change to "stop the bleeding," keep 'em active programs post mission and in institutes, Church magazine focus and articles, etc.), but what we're seeing is rapid, "bombshell," seemingly out of nowhere announcements from young married couples with children that they are leaving the Church or that they want to (this doesn't come "out of nowhere," but it's the first anyone knows about it). We've been called and asked advice from friends about their children (sometimes in other states), and in many cases, these apostasies are among "the cream of the crop" (youth we knew well). By the time of the "bombshell" announcements, they neither want nor are open to help, discussion, question-answering, etc. 

Is anyone else noticing this? 

I know that in certain quarters, the response to this is, "Well, no duh. The Church is false, you could drive a truck through the holes in the truth claims, they're just seeing the light about how false everything is and becoming enlightened, etc." Obviously, I disagree with this, but I do agree that the way the Church has handled some things over decades is a contributing factor. 

I can't say that I have. I know a couple that could likely fit that....though the ones I can think of are generally clients of mine. All of my closest friends are still definitely active. And I can only think of a handful that I know on FB who were active believers that later left period. I can't deem these as surprising or not because most of them I've had limited contact with for years. 

The others, it usually happened when they were pretty young (late teens, early 20's) and the circumstances don't fit this description. It wasn't sudden and only one would probably be deemed as somewhat surprising. 

I know plenty who've left or are not active, they just weren't overnight shifts....and weren't young families. My brother who recently left is the closest to this...he sprung it on us suddenly after pretending for months he was still "LDS" (without attending much, though) and hiding his doubts for at least a year before then...but he's barely 20 and dating a non-lds girl from a tight knit conservative non-denom family. And though the announcement was a surprise the decent was almost painfully classic. So not exactly the parameters you're painting.   

 

Of the ones I know that do fit it more, their reasons were a mix of having a conflict with what I'd personally consider a more cultural experience of church or culturally derived version of the gospel. One that I had, discussed some of the comments that she'd receive from her super conservative communities. I told her it sounded like she was in a cult (hyper-rigidity, super shaming language, very black-and-white thinking, a ton of blurring between culture and gospel, a ton of skepticism of outsiders, etc). The last straw was when they had a pregnancy scare and had to seriously consider abortion, which helped complete their decision for her to have a hysterectomy. Technically, policy wise, their reasons would fit into reasons to consider an abortion. But because that is rarely (if ever) discussed in the church, more pro-life and big-family voices are validated and stories that bolster that end-result are shared, they felt super out of step with their family and community.   

 

With luv,

BD

Link to comment
16 hours ago, Calm said:

I got it. 😛 

Yes you did- shown by your rep point- and I think you were the only one.

It seems that happens fairly often around here.  Except when I am being bad  🥲

Link to comment
On 9/18/2021 at 1:41 AM, Kenngo1969 said:

Fixed it for you. ;)

OK, in all seriousness, I know your hypothesis is that the phenomenon is especially pronounced among the young.  That may be: I don't know.  :unknw:  "The Internet made (is making) them do it"?  Again, I don't know.  If you ask me, the technosavviness gap between young and older has existed for enough time that I'm not sure that "they suddenly discovered the truth on the Internet" is a viable explanation.  I don't know how much comfort this is to the parent of a wayward child, but the scripture does say, "Train up a child in the way he should go and when he is old, he will not depart from it"

Wokeness is a fatal infection. Once it enters the system it takes over. 

Link to comment
On 9/18/2021 at 3:15 AM, Fether said:

Was this normal in the past?

I think it was and is part of human nature, aptly described in a popular WWI song:

Quote

Reuben, Reuben, I've been thinking
Said his wifey dear
Now that all is peaceful and calm
The boys will soon be back on the farm
Mister Reuben started winking and slowly rubbed his chin
He pulled his chair up close to mother
And he asked her with a grin

[Chorus]
How ya gonna keep 'em down on the farm
After they've seen Paree'
How ya gonna keep 'em away from Broadway
Jazzin around and paintin' the town
How ya gonna keep 'em away from harm, that's a mystery
They'll never want to see a rake or plow
And who the deuce can parleyvous a cow?
How ya gonna keep 'em down on the farm
After they've seen Paree'

I have friends in Native American tribal leadership positions and have read several books by Vine DeLoria who are faced with a similar problem…many of their young people who go into higher ed never return to the reservation.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

By this logic, the church shouldn't teach any behavioral norm because it ostracizes those who don't conform. Law of Chastity? Can't teach that cuz we don't want to offend those living with their girlfriends. Word of Wisdom? Don't want to offend the smokers. 

If that's the standard, what's even the point of a church?

Final point: there is no ward or stake calling, no temple blessing, no activity in the church that would be denied to somebody who didn't serve a mission. I've served in an EQ presidency with a guy who chose not to serve a mission. Yes, there's a desire for our young men to serve missions, just as there is a desire for them to obey the Law of Chastity or keep the Word of Wisdom. But there's no caste system, nothing to prevent them from receiving their full temple blessings or serving in high callings in the Church.

Young men are encouraged and invited to serve missions, but they are not required.  They are called only after voluntarily applying.

Link to comment
7 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

By this logic, the church shouldn't teach any behavioral norm because it ostracizes those who don't conform. Law of Chastity? Can't teach that cuz we don't want to offend those living with their girlfriends. Word of Wisdom? Don't want to offend the smokers. 

If that's the standard, what's even the point of a church?

those are sins or violating them is a sin. That is different. Not going on a mission is not a sin.

7 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Final point: there is no ward or stake calling, no temple blessing, no activity in the church that would be denied to somebody who didn't serve a mission. I've served in an EQ presidency with a guy who chose not to serve a mission. Yes, there's a desire for our young men to serve missions, just as there is a desire for them to obey the Law of Chastity or keep the Word of Wisdom. But there's no caste system, nothing to prevent them from receiving their full temple blessings or serving in high callings in the Church.

I agree with this 100% with the exception of how it is enforced. You also didn’t address my comment about a bishop or SP declaring over the pulpit that missions are purely optional. Neither you nor kengo did. Why? Because both you know any bishop or SP who dares do that his goose is cooked. Let me give you an example of how seriously and “optional” a mission is regarded as by the church in real life when the big dogs are involved. 

I enlisted in the army during high school. Active army not the weekend warriors where I could go on a mission. Family, bishop and company all have collective cow and wage shame war on second class citizen. 
 

At the dinner table with my family sat good ole Boyd k packer himself a few months later. We had apostles over on a regular basis because of fathers position and both parents’ connection. Packer says to me me during dinner; Well second class I understand you are a senior in HS. I respond yes. He asks; oh well where do you think you would like to serve your mission? 
 

Guess why he is asking? Answer is because I get to choose. Yep - that’s how it’s done in the real church where people are connected. Since I’m generally an honest guy I tell him I already joined the army. He didn’t even look at me and then asked someone something else. My mother nearly died inside judging by the look on her face. I have no doubt she wanted me to lie. Now she knew for certain I wasn’t going because I had the balls to say it to Packers face.
 

later that evening my dad gets ripped a new one and told to get his son under control and out on a mission. The fallout of having a SP’s son bail on a mission could spell disaster for a stake’s missionary numbers says Packer. My dad told me this about ten years ago. 
 

So there you have it. There is a caste system within the church and  depending upon your position in it, missions are not optional if you want to remain in good standing. The worst thing ever is to have dynastic families gradually leave the church or do what they want to do. Ever wonder why so many GAs have multiple family members in high church positions.? It is either family and /or trusted connections. I could have chosen where I went on a mission - just think of that. I would have gone exactly where I wanted to go if I would have just said so. That  is the benefit of a caste system. Certain members get special privileges and when you don’t carry the water it can and often is a life sentence of shunning and shame. 
 

for the normal Mormon in the mission field as they would call it..  yea your mileage may vary. In my world or the real church as some of the insiders call it- yea you have one choice and have the free agency to do exact what they say. They would have it this way with everyone if they could. 
 

when I heard the story about Boyd packer pressuring Lynn packer not to publish the story about Dunn I totally believed it. That is how he and the high up church leaders operate. Save face for the church no matter if it is the right thing to do or not. Firing Lynn packer after breaking the story is the right thing when it comes to obeying the leaders unconditionally. Even though he exposed a no good liar they were letting fly under the radar. 

Edited by secondclasscitizen
Link to comment
7 hours ago, Navidad said:

I explained my response and perspective as being from my lived experience. Not exactly sure how you can disagree with that since you don't know me?

I don't know what you mean by "the same baptism?" I have baptized many people, only by immersion and only after having at least six weeks of pre-baptism classes. I never stressed church membership, so that was not associated with baptism. We don't use the terms catechism or confirmation, but we certainly have a time of training (classes), observation, and Q and A prior to baptism. A meeting is held with all elders prior to baptism and the candidate must be approved as ready before baptism is done. The candidate must then provide a public witness in front of the entire congregation prior to baptism. The candidate was encouraged to make certain commitments or covenants, none of which had anything to do with the church - they were all Christ-centered. We certainly have a WOW. The one I lived and to some degree still live under was more lifestyle conformity, rather than food or drink (other than alcohol). No creeds.

We have an extensive understanding of callings. We both ordain and in some cases license folks to different ministries. As a older youth (20 years old), I did a mission in west Africa. I was later licensed upon being called to a ministry of work with youth and music in several churches. Later I was ordained in certain callings after an extensive time of examination and training. Later I was licensed to serve, after being called as a headmaster of a Christian school. This license was valid as long as I was in that position and in good standing. I was paid just as the Director of the Juarez Stake Academy is paid.

I am completely and adamantly against political games and racism. In fact I am opposed to isms of all kinds from racism to racialization, ableism, to credalisms, normalizing, generalizing, othering, classism, and on and on. I tend to be conservative theologically and liberal in social justice. I see no conflict whatsoever between the two. Almost every Evangelical I know would testify to a similar life experience and commitment. I am sure there are racist Evangelicals, just as there are racist members of the LDS church, Catholics, and Pentecostals. I would not associate with anyone of that ilk, regardless of the professed faith. 

I also have an insatiable need to know and understand, hence my wife and my full-time participation in an LDS ward for more than four years now.

Having served in senior positions in, and worked with large urban public school districts, I probably have more leftist-leaning friends than conservative, but I have plenty of both. I am an equal opportunity friend. I am a Mennonite so I am pretty much opposed to all violence from wherever it originates. That is enough of my journey. Someday maybe we can meet and chat.

Was dunked Lutheran as an infant and Catholic later on.  I opted to be loyal to the former due to politics and what not, long unplesant story.  I had catechism and other things.  Needless to say, I've been exposed to a fair amount of religious politics, just how it is.  

Long story short, had a bad childhood and well, a lot of evangelicals I was exposed to as a child were very, very racist.  You try growing up hearing people call your mom all kinds of racist things while having a violent alcoholic father who spent most of his life trying to ruin you, it causes damage.  Also, the politics I see them and now the Catholic church getting into makes me want to throw up.  That and well, treatment as an adult is why I tend to be very leery, distrusting and well, at times harsh.  I have not had your experiences.

The time you spend with LDS wards is impressive, the Mennonite part now convinces me.  My apologies, I'll take your word for it.  I have nothing but respect for Mennonites.  Now you do make a lot more sense, someone like you would be that curious about things.  

Link to comment
4 hours ago, secondclasscitizen said:

You also didn’t address my comment about a bishop or SP declaring over the pulpit that missions are purely optional. ... Because both you know any bishop or SP who dares do that his goose is cooked.

I've previously had a bishop who was called as a bishop even though he hadn't served a mission (by choice). Why would he need to declare it when he's sitting there in front of everyone every week for several years?

 

Link to comment
22 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

I've previously had a bishop who was called as a bishop even though he hadn't served a mission (by choice). Why would he need to declare it when he's sitting there in front of everyone every week for several years?

 

That’s not my point and I never said anyone who didn’t serve a mission couldn’t be a bishop. My father didn’t serve a mission because of ww2, but wartime service has been regarded as an honorable excuse for conflicts up to and including Vietnam. See our entire first presidency. After that since there is no draft… no excuse
 

If your bishop gets up in front of the congregation and tells the young men the mission is purely optional and they can do whatever they want you and I both know there will be a disciplinary council. He will be released from his calling and disciplined for openly and publicly opposing the brethren. 

do you disagree? You think a bishop or stake president can do this and expect to get away with it? Ur crazy if u do. Their job is to pressure young men to go on a mission. ESP the bishop.
 

if you think it isn’t a thing, convince him to do it next Sunday. 

Edited by secondclasscitizen
Link to comment
16 minutes ago, secondclasscitizen said:

That’s not my point and I never said anyone who didn’t serve a mission couldn’t be a bishop.

No. But if someone who is a Bishop, didn't serve a mission (by choice), then it's pretty clear that serving a mission isn't necessary.

16 minutes ago, secondclasscitizen said:

After that since there is no draft… no excuse

The draft wasn't a concern.

16 minutes ago, secondclasscitizen said:

if you think it isn’t a thing, convince him to do it next Sunday. 

He hasn't been a bishop for a while, so I don't think his wife would appreciate him storming the stands.

Edited by JustAnAustralian
Link to comment
12 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

No. But if someone who is a Bishop, didn't serve a mission (by choice), then it's pretty clear that serving a mission isn't necessary.

bishop is not a high calling. It is a first step to see if you will throw your entire family life under the bus for five years because someone told you to. If so then maybe there is a future for a higher calling. Most don’t make the grade. 

12 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

The draft wasn't a concern.

yea I got that by you saying he didn’t go by choice. 

12 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

He hasn't been a bishop for a while, so I don't think his wife would appreciate him storming the stands.

What’s he doing now? 
 

 

so do you agree or disagree that a bishop or stake pres declaring mission service for young men as being purely optional and they are free to do whatever they want over the pulpit is grounds for a disciplinary council? 
 

How odd that this has been asked three times now and no one will answer it. 

Edited by secondclasscitizen
Link to comment
1 hour ago, secondclasscitizen said:

What’s he doing now? 

High Council

 

1 hour ago, secondclasscitizen said:

so do you agree or disagree that a bishop or stake pres declaring mission service for young men as being purely optional and they are free to do whatever they want over the pulpit is grounds for a disciplinary council? 

From the handbook

When a Membership Council Is Required or May Be Necessary

Type of Sin

Membership Council Is Required (see 32.6.1)

Membership Council May Be Necessary (see 32.6.2)

Violent Acts and Abuse

  • Murder

  • Rape

  • Sexual assault conviction

  • Child or youth abuse

  • Violent predatory behavior

  • Attempted murder

  • Sexual abuse, including assault and harassment (see 38.6.18 for when a council is required)

  • Abuse of a spouse or another adult (see 38.6.2.4 for when a council is required)

Sexual Immorality

  • Incest

  • Child pornography

  • Plural marriage

  • Sexual predatory behavior

  • Adultery, fornication, and same-sex relations

  • Cohabitation, civil unions and partnerships, and same-sex marriage

  • Intensive or compulsive use of pornography that has caused significant harm to a member’s marriage or family

Fraudulent Acts

  • Financial predatory behavior, such as fraud and similar activities

  • Robbery, burglary, theft, or embezzlement

  • Perjury

Violations of Trust

  • Serious sin while holding a prominent Church position

  • Serious sin while holding a position of authority or trust in the Church or the community

  • Serious sin that is widely known

Some Other Acts

  • Most felony convictions

  • Abortion

  • Pattern of serious sins

  • Deliberate abandonment of family responsibilities, including nonpayment of child support and alimony

  • Sale of illegal drugs

  • Other serious criminal acts

 

And since "it's mandatory to go on a mission unless you have a disability of some kind" isn't actually church doctrine, it's not apostasy either.

So to answer your question directly. Based on my reading of the handbook, I do not think a Bishop or Stake President standing up in front of a conjuration and telling the young men that it's their decision whether to go on a mission or not is grounds for a membership council

Edited by JustAnAustralian
Link to comment
6 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

High Council

yea he isn’t going anywhere. 

6 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

So to answer your question directly. Based on my reading of the handbook, I do not think a Bishop or Stake President standing up in front of a conjuration and telling the young men that it's their decision whether to go on a mission or not is grounds for a membership council

so speaking against the brethren you don’t believe will come with a cost?
looks to me it would be a violation of trust for a widely known serious sin. The serious sin being speaking against the brethren. In order for. Bishop to tell the congregation nothing to see here this is all optional is the equivalent of stating serving a mission is not a priesthood duty. The church itself states it is a priesthood duty and offer only two excuses fir not serving a mission and that has been discussed already so er know those two reasons.
 

Sam young was exed and all he did was advocate for a parent to accompany a minor while the bishop asks them if they touch their naughty places. 
 

well thanks for at least answering it. I’m of the opinion he would be removed. They would not tolerate that kind of talk esp when they ( the bros) don’t say that and I seriously doubt anyone could get them to publicly. 

Edited by secondclasscitizen
Link to comment
12 hours ago, secondclasscitizen said:

I enlisted in the army during high school. Active army not the weekend warriors where I could go on a mission. Family, bishop and company all have collective cow and wage shame war on second class citizen. 

I'm sorry that was your experience. Had you been in my ward, we would have asked for your favorite quote or scripture (same as with anyone going on a mission) and then ordered a military service plaque for our ward bulletin board.

 

Link to comment
57 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I'm sorry that was your experience. Had you been in my ward, we would have asked for your favorite quote or scripture (same as with anyone going on a mission) and then ordered a military service plaque for our ward bulletin board.

 

No need to apologize I knew that would be the response. The culture here is such that missions are constantly pushed. It’s all good that’s part of the hazing to be in the club. I just wasn’t gonna go and stood up for myself. Took the easy way out according to my bishop. 
 

service plaque for a military guy?? Never seen one of those before ha. I guess when no one around here goes military why would there be one right!?

Edited by secondclasscitizen
Link to comment
8 hours ago, secondclasscitizen said:

How many GAs didn’t serve missions who are not draftees or converts?

President Dallin H. Oaks.  He was expecting to be drafted, but I don't believe it ever happened.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...