The Continued Decline of Young Men Willing to Serve a Mission

[Fether]

Just now, bluebell said:

Maybe it is and maybe it's not.  We don't have enough information to judge it either way.

Are we really afraid to declare something a sin or not?

[jkwilliams]

9 minutes ago, Fether said:

Are we really afraid to declare something a sin or not?

I'm not afraid to label something a sin in the eyes of the church when the church says it's a sin. I still haven't heard the church say not serving a mission is a sin. Not even once. 

A couple of months before I entered the MTC, I attended a fireside at the Provo Tabernacle, where Boyd K. Packer spoke about serving a mission. He said the Lord was displeased if we delayed a mission, even for a month or two, and that we had a duty to go right when we turned 19. I had turned 19 a couple of weeks before, and I had decided previously that I would finish one more semester before my mission, meaning I'd enter the MTC when I was 19 years and 2 months. I felt so ashamed of having delayed those two months that, when my roommate insisted we should get in line to shake his hand after the meeting, I didn't want to. I was too embarrassed, and I was sure he would know I had delayed my mission. Of course, I shook his hand, and he asked me if I planned on serving a mission, and I told him I was leaving for Bolivia in 2 months. He patted my shoulder and said, "Well, that's just wonderful!" Looking back, I realize that it was silly to feel guilt and shame over my decision. I served a mission, and I didn't need to repent for timing it around a college semester.

It just seems to me that we're too loosely defining "sin" and "commandment" when we put down absolutes about whether to serve a mission. I think God is just enough to understand each person's life, needs, and path. But then I'm preaching sin, so feel free to ignore me. 

Edited August 10, 2022 by jkwilliams

[Fether]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I'm not afraid to label something a sin in the eyes of the church when the church says it's a sin. I still haven't heard the church say not serving a mission is a sin. Not even once. 

A couple of months before I entered the MTC, I attended a fireside at the Provo Tabernacle, where Boyd K. Packer spoke about serving a mission. He said the Lord was displeased if we delayed a mission, even for a month or to, and that we had a duty to go right when we turned 19. I had turned 19 a couple of weeks before, and I had decided previously that I would finish one more semester before my mission, meaning I'd enter the MTC when I was 19 years and 2 months. I felt so ashamed of having delayed those two months that, when my roommate insisted we should get in line to shake his hand after the meeting, I didn't want to. I was too embarrassed, and I was sure he would know I had delayed my mission. Of course, I shook his hand, and he asked me if I planned on serving a mission, and I told him I was leaving for Bolivia in 2 months. He patted my shoulder and said, "Well, that's just wonderful!" Looking back, I realize that it was silly to feel guilt and shame over my decision. I served a mission, and I didn't need to repent for timing it around a college semester.

It just seems to me that we're too loosely defining "sin" and "commandment" when we put down absolutes about whether to serve a mission. I think God is just enough to understand each person's life, needs, and path. But then I'm preaching sin, so feel free to ignore me. 

How do you understand James 4:17

“Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.”

 

Also Doctrine and Covenants 82:3 or Luke 12:47-48

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Fether said:

How do you understand James 4:17

“Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.”

 

Also Doctrine and Covenants 82:3 or Luke 12:47-48

So, if I deduce something is a sin based on my reading of a particular scripture, it's a sin? I could do that with a lot of behaviors. Again, seems like way too loose a definition of sin. Again, I'm an apostate, so my view doesn't count.

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, Fether said:

Are we really afraid to declare something a sin or not?

I am very wary of calling other people sinners, given that I see through a glass darkly and all of that.  I'm very happy to leave that up to God (and see no reason not to leave it up to Him). 

I know that if I don't make an effort to read my scriptures, that I have sinned.  I will not declare that for anyone else.  This is not a weakness on my part or because of fear.  It's because I believe it is sinful for me to do so.

 

 

[Danzo]

19 minutes ago, Fether said:

Are we really afraid to declare something a sin or not?

Declaring something a sin is very easy, I don't see anyone here being afraid to declare something that someone else does is a sin. Finding other's behavior a sin is the easiest thing in the world.  I could probably do it in my sleep.   

Confessing the sins of other people is practically a national sport.

People are much more afraid of declaring something they do a sin. Confessing and forsaking our own sins is not as fun as confessing others sins but it is much more productive. 

 

[Fether]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I am very wary of calling other people sinners, given that I see through a glass darkly and all of that.  I'm very happy to leave that up to God (and see no reason not to leave it up to Him). 

I know that if I don't make an effort to read my scriptures, that I have sinned.  I will not declare that for anyone else.  This is not a weakness on my part or because of fear.  It's because I believe it is sinful for me to do so.

 

 

I’m not asking you to call anyone a sinner. I’m asking if something is a sin. Very different.

My purpose in asking it was to point out that something doesn’t need to be one of the 10-commandments to be a sin. I’m taking the James scripture, as well as scriptures like Doctrine and Covenants 82:3 as evidence that God expects more out of us than just to follow the commandments. There are duties we are expected to perform that, if failed, would be a sin to us.

And AGAIN, I seem to have to restate this, on an individual level repentance exists and we ought to be patient with people as they grow. But let’s our God is a God of low expectations. He wants a lot for us and his laws are strict.

[bluebell]

25 minutes ago, Fether said:

I’m not asking you to call anyone a sinner. I’m asking if something is a sin. Very different.

My purpose in asking it was to point out that something doesn’t need to be one of the 10-commandments to be a sin. I’m taking the James scripture, as well as scriptures like Doctrine and Covenants 82:3 as evidence that God expects more out of us than just to follow the commandments. There are duties we are expected to perform that, if failed, would be a sin to us.

And AGAIN, I seem to have to restate this, on an individual level repentance exists and we ought to be patient with people as they grow. But let’s our God is a God of low expectations. He wants a lot for us and his laws are strict.

And I'm saying, that it depends on the person doing/not doing it, whether or not it's a sin for them or not.

(And by sin I mean something that needs to be repented of)

[Rock_N_Roll]

19 hours ago, Fether said:

Just to gage where you are at. Would you say not reading scriptures is a sin?

I’m sorry, your question is too vague to give an answer.

-          Not reading the scriptures ever?

-          Not reading the scriptures once a week?

-          Not reading the scriptures every day?

-          Does reading a verse or two in Sunday School every week count?

Everyone's take on “reading the scriptures” will be different, but generally speaking, I would say no it’s not a sin.

Can you explain the difference between a sin and a transgression?

[Rain]

 

1 hour ago, Fether said:

Your introducing exterior scenarios, but I’ll play along to your hyper specific requirements.

If a person who was baptized, in good standing, has a college education and is in completely good health chooses to not read scriptures week after week, is that a sin they are committing?

 

No clue.  I think that one of the reasons we read scriptures is because they often help people recognize what is sin and what isn't.  They often help people grow closer to God.  They often help people understand who God is.  For some people it is highly important that they read them because they either are not getting those things in other ways or this is the best way for them to get it or one of the reasons God wants them personally to get them.  But lack of reading scriptures in and of itself is not a sin.  It all depends on whether God requires that person to do it.  

It's kind of like plumbing.  I can read a book to learn how to do it.  I can just get in and observe how it's done.  I can study the pipes.  I can do a combination.   

I can read the scriptures to learn about God.  I can observe others to see how worshipping is done.  I can look at the miracles God has done.  I can do a combination of those. 

Reading the scriptures isn't a requirement.  It is highly encouraged because there is so much to learn from the method for most people.  But skipping one learning process isn't a sin for everyone though it very definitely could make it much harder for many people to know God without them.

God definitely told me to go on a mission.  It would have been a sin for me not to go.  Me, a woman, who by what the prophet has said wasn't required to go.  I cannot make that judgment of anyone else going or not.  

[manol]

On 8/9/2022 at 2:52 PM, Fether said:

You completely missed the point. Every time you take the sacrament, you are resigning up to be a Latter Day Saint and obey God’s commandments. If you take the sacrament when you are 21 years old, you are covenanting your obey God, and God has declared all young men need to serve missions

I think this interpretation mis-characterizes the Sacrament prayers as something they are not.  Let me explain:

Those who partake of the bread "witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son, and always remember him, and keep his commandments which he has given them...".

The key word is willing.  If we were witnessing unto God that we actually DO "keep his commandments", we would be lying.  If we were witnessing unto God that we WILL "keep his commandments", we would be lying.   It is WILLINGNESS that is being "witnessed" to.   In partaking of the bread we witness to what our INTENTIONS are, not what our ACTIONS are. 

And nothing is said about obedience to intermediaries.  What is being witnessed to is between the individual and God.

(Imo there is a whole lot more going on in those few words, but that's a different topic for a different day.)

Those who partake of the water "witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they do always remember him...".

The key word is do.  We are witnessing about our ACTIONS here, and the level of diligence we are witnessing to is that we "do always remember him."  If we DON'T "always remember him", then we are lying.

Again, nothing is said about obedience to intermediaries.  What is being witnessed to is between the individual and God. 

 

Edited August 10, 2022 by manol

[Teancum]

22 hours ago, Fether said:

I’m definitely heated. 

Well cool down there pardner...

22 hours ago, Fether said:

 

 

If a young man chooses to not serve a mission, there should be no shame. He should be helped and persuaded to continue to grow spiritually. Hopefully, one day, he will choose to serve

Well you seem pretty good at the shaming side so pardon me if I think you are not creditable here.

22 hours ago, Fether said:

 

Now… if someone is declaring that missions are not expect of young men and that it is up to them to decide and God cares little of what he chooses to do… that is when I get mad. It’s one thing to sin, it is another to preach sin.

WHat is sinful is your adamant approach to this issue. You need to repent.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

Well cool down there pardner...

Well you seem pretty good at the shaming side so pardon me if I think you are not creditable here.

WHat is sinful is your adamant approach to this issue. You need to repent.

I wouldn't say his approach is sinful, but it is definitely a harder line than I've ever heard the church take. I don't mean to offend anyone, but this really reinforces the impression some people have that God is a God of checklists and hoops to jump through. I don't buy it.

[filovirus]

7 hours ago, Teancum said:

The  pressure for YM to serve is also a pressure on parents to get them to serve. It is quite common for a Latter-day Saint parent to judge their success as a parent by the choices their children make.  I would guess if you don't feel this you are the exception rather than the rule.

I don’t hold to this mentality. I am perfectly ok if any of my sons choose not to serve a mission. But what I hope I can say of their decision to go or not go is that I taught them God’s expectation that they go and that they have the moral agency to heed or not that expectation.

As an anecdote, a nephew of mine just told his family that he will not go on a mission. He is a great young man whether he goes or not. My brother and his wife have raised him well and are great parents. I don’t feel they did not succeed as parents or as members of the church because my nephew is not going on a mission.

Edited August 10, 2022 by filovirus

[Buckeye]

On 8/9/2022 at 9:25 AM, Fair Dinkum said:

Salt Lake, We have a Problem.

In 2015 Elder Jeffery Holland famously predicted Here that the church would have a 100,000 missionaries serving worldwide by 2019.  Sadly, since his prediction, the very opposite has taken place.   Each and every year since this prediction, the number of young men who have chosen to serve a mission has declined. Here we see that as of today, instead of that foretold 100,000 missionary force, the church only has 54,539 missionaries in the field, a near 50% shortfall of Hollands prediction. And as seen in the churches own graph, that decline is in free fall.

Some anecdotal data suggests that only 1 in 4 actively attending church young men along the Wasatch front, the bread basket of church mission service, are choosing to go on missions and one informant has revealed that in one Alpine, Utah ward, of the dozens of eligible young men available to serve, not a single young man has chosen to do so.

More anecdotal information, of my 3 grandson's eligible to serve, only one is choosing to do so.  We love and support the decisions of each of these wonderful young men.

Perhaps due to this drop in young men choosing to serve, the church held a special lesson on the 5th Sunday of July, encouraging missionary service. In this lesson, parents were instructed to teach their young men of missionary age that mission service is a priesthood obligation, a requirement for worthy missionary age young men, that these young men do not have a choice in this decision. It was a call to arms.

The consequences of this meeting and its aftermath have been the final straw for one of my grandsons.  He's a believer, attends church regularly with his family, but just like the members of the First Presidency who chose NOT to serve missions, he too has exercised his agency and has chosen not to go on a mission. But since this meeting he is receiving the full court press from those assigned to apply pressure.  He has received calls or visits from his ward priest leader, his bishop and even a call from his stake president.  He told me this week, that he is feeling so much pressure to serve a mission that he is now questioning how he can even attend church for fear of constant shaming & harassment.  The church is literally driving this wonderful young man away.

I understand the church desperately needs to recruit more young men to serve missions, but from where I stand their efforts are backfiring and will only drive their missionary numbers lower.

* For what its worth, I LOVED my mission and had a wonderful experience and have always expressed my experience in positive tones.

 

I have not read all the comments so apologies if this idea has been raised already. 
 

While not a panacea, one of the strongest tools we have to increase priesthood action in your young men, including through serving missions, is to ordain young women and extend the expectation that all youth serve a mission. The attempt to hold young men to a different standard than young women simply doesn’t work. If service is merely an option for one group, it will inevitably be only an option for both. 
 

I have five children, three sons followed by two daughters. The oldest served a mission. The second is out now. The third is actively planning to go after high school. My daughters are equally planning to serve. My wife and I have always treated them the same. Service is your duty and will greatly bless you. We will love you no matter your choice but serving a mission is what you should do. It’s not just an option. When church leaders says it’s only an option for young women we correct that teaching at home. It’s the right choice for all youth. 

Edited August 10, 2022 by Buckeye

[manol]

On 8/9/2022 at 2:08 PM, Fether said:

This would be a fine argument if not for the fact that they recovenant with the sacrament every week of their life.

See my post above.

On 8/9/2022 at 2:08 PM, Fether said:

if someone, age 21, signs a contract, would they not be morally obliged to follow through with it?

I don't know whether this holds true in all states, but in the state where my boss had a law degree, one principle of contract law was that in order for a contract to be enforceable there must have been a "meeting of the minds", which means that BOTH parties need to have understood the same words in the same way, or be reasonably expected to have done so.  If I write an ambiguous contract, or one which tricks you into "agreeing" to something you did not actually agree to, you can sue to break the contract.  It is far from guaranteed that you will win, but depending on the merits of the case, you might. 

(In that same state contracts signed under duress are unenforceable, as are contracts which sign away your constitutional rights, or are otherwise "against public policy", which of course is subject to interpretation.)

Edited August 10, 2022 by manol

[Teancum]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

I think that’s pretty much the status quo for all parents, religious or not.

But that is different than cutting ties with your child because they didn’t do what you wanted them too as an adult. One is normal parent behavior and the other isn’t.

Sorry. I realize now that you comment was in response to John's example of a very harsh parent.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Buckeye said:

I have not read all the comments so apologies if this idea has been raised already. 
 

While not a panacea, one of the strongest tools we have to increase priesthood action in your young men, including through serving missions, is to ordain young women and extend the expectation that all youth serve a mission. The attempt to hold young men to a different standard than young women simply doesn’t work. If service is merely an option for one group, it will inevitably be only an option for both. 
 

I have five children, three sons followed by two daughters. The oldest served a mission. The second is out now. The third is actively planning to go after high school. My daughters are equally planning to serve. My wife and I have always treated them the same. Service is your duty and will greatly bless you. We will love you no matter your choice but serving a mission is what you should do. It’s not just an option. When church leaders says it’s only an option for young women we correct that teaching at home. It’s the right choice for all youth. 

I can understand what you are saying (especially since I know how you feel about female ordination--something we don't agree on), but I can't really get behind it because of some women that I've personally known who have felt the answer for them was different. 

I've known girls who wanted to go on missions, and had always planned on going, who took the matter to the Lord and were told that serving at that time was not what the Lord wanted them to do. 

While I respect your thoughts on it, I don't see a reason to view them as authoritative for young sisters in general.

(I served a mission and it was the best decision I ever made because that's where God wanted me to be).

[Craig Speechly]

I'll throw my 2¢ in.   I loved my mission and have no regrets on having served a mission.  Despite no longer being involved much with the church. (can you really ever get out, living along the Wasatch front?)  I would recommend everyone who desires to serve to go.  I can assure you that a mission will be an extremely difficult but also a very growing experience especially if you are blessed to serve abroad in a foreign country.

That said, I really don't care what the good, well meaning, folks in the CAB have to say on this matter.  Mission service is a very personal choice and choosing NOT to go is often the RIGHT choice.

[Calm]

7 hours ago, Fether said:

Are we really afraid to declare something a sin or not?

No.  But we are likely highly aware of the impact of arrogance and therefore wisely cautious.

[Calm]

6 hours ago, filovirus said:

I don’t feel they did not succeed as parents or as members of the church because my nephew is not going on a mission.

Isn’t a huge part of whether it is a good thing or a bad thing the reason why they aren’t going on a mission?  I can imagine quite a few things I would be more joyful to hear than “I have submitted my mission papers”…such as “I have decided I will donate my kidney so this child can live, but that means I won’t be able to go on a mission for at least a while and maybe never”.

I can see one great reason not to go on a mission as a young man is an educational opportunity to get involved with a medical organization that then develops one’s skills and allows one to influence others to help those in need rather than just focus on those who can afford to pay massive fees for unusual medical services.  If one prays and is inspired by the Lord to take that route as in the end one will reach more to serve and maybe even influence with the gospel as it will open doors to teach, as long as one doesn’t later forsake that intent, it seems to me they are obeying God.  If they choose a medical career and don’t want to delay any and make a bargain with God ‘instead of a mission, I will do a lot of charity work, so let me off the hook of priesthood duty’, I would say that is likely a sin.  
 

There have in the past been sports figures and other celebrities who have shared that they were instructed by church leaders to not go on an official mission because they would achieve more by continuing in what was making them notable.  They were told they were serving a mission in their own way.  My guess was that was true when the Church was less well known.  I had a roommate at college who had a crush on Donny Osmond when younger and had explored everything about him, including the Church.  Eventually she switched to investigating the Gospel itself and became converted.  Now the Church is better known in the states, I see that purpose for not serving a mission isn’t much needed and we hear much more in the Church of the celebrities who put aside the fame to serve a typical mission.

I see the Restored Gospel as pretty practical.  We have the commandment to honor the Sabbath, but we are also taught those who must work on Sunday receive blessings still.  We see very few lines that are rigid in the Gospel in terms of this is how fulfillment of this commandment must be done.  Now those who choose to work Sundays because they want an excuse for missing church, I find it easy to call that a sin, but since people don’t typically share that as their intent, it would be wrong of me to assume any individual working on Sunday is sinning for that reason.  They may be obeying the higher law of providing for their families or loving their neighbour if their work is caregiving, for example.

Those who pray and are inspired not to go (truly inspired, not just convincing themselves it is okay) are imo being chosen to obey a higher law with God needing them to serve elsewhere to bring themselves and/or others to Him.

Edited August 11, 2022 by Calm

[Harry T. Clark]

Maybe the brethren need to sell the adventure, the worth of hard work, the growth that happens.  I think kids like climbing mountains, pushing themselves to the limit, getting away from parents for a bit.  Sell that!  What a great experience it was for me.  It's been a while, but I used to dream that I was called again to go on a mission and would always wake up excited, ready to attack the day.  So what about the history.  We have a great family atmosphere to sell where we work together to bring our fellow brothers and sisters to something better than they have now.  Man, kids are missing out if they don't go.  Two years is such a short time but enough time to gain some independence and enough time to get some experience being an adult.

Edited August 11, 2022 by Harry T. Clark

[Tacenda]

18 hours ago, Rain said:

 

 

No clue.  I think that one of the reasons we read scriptures is because they often help people recognize what is sin and what isn't.  They often help people grow closer to God.  They often help people understand who God is.  For some people it is highly important that they read them because they either are not getting those things in other ways or this is the best way for them to get it or one of the reasons God wants them personally to get them.  But lack of reading scriptures in and of itself is not a sin.  It all depends on whether God requires that person to do it.  

It's kind of like plumbing.  I can read a book to learn how to do it.  I can just get in and observe how it's done.  I can study the pipes.  I can do a combination.   

I can read the scriptures to learn about God.  I can observe others to see how worshipping is done.  I can look at the miracles God has done.  I can do a combination of those. 

Reading the scriptures isn't a requirement.  It is highly encouraged because there is so much to learn from the method for most people.  But skipping one learning process isn't a sin for everyone though it very definitely could make it much harder for many people to know God without them.

God definitely told me to go on a mission.  It would have been a sin for me not to go.  Me, a woman, who by what the prophet has said wasn't required to go.  I cannot make that judgment of anyone else going or not.  

I am so happy to not be under that pressure to read the scriptures any longer. I read other more uplifting and real things that I feel my creator has revealed to me is what is needed for me. His yoke is light, and man made scriptures is risking so much and damaging to many. Why would I chance believing something that causes death, lifetimes of sorrow, mind trickery, etc. I feel that taking His name in vain, is saying things you want people to believe and saying it came from God. I feel the Bible is replete with men saying what God says and He hasn't. Sure I could get some good out of it, but as a whole, it's really not worth it trying to get around the scriptures that are false or men's crazy ideas. Being told constantly in the church to pray and read your scriptures, isn't a route that helped me. My intuition, moral compass has kept me spiritually sane. The day in day out messages from church about did me in. It became a constant noise with nothing beautiful in it, like what is in a beautiful song. It's fingernails on a chalk board. I feel for anyone that thinks it's a sin to not follow the demands from their religious leaders to read their scriptures and they don't warn against the scriptures that are harmful. It's like a manual for an appliance that has false directions. 

ADD: But to each their own, and I'm happy it's helped you in your life Rain. 

Edited August 11, 2022 by Tacenda

[Teancum]

On 8/9/2022 at 6:40 PM, Fether said:

It’s been turned up because our leaders and adults are teaching that young men don’t really need to serve missions if they don’t feel like it

While I do not attend I cannot imagine that leaders are telling YM they really do not need to serve if they do not feel like it. I spent a lot of years as a YM leader, bishopric counselor and bishop.  This from the mid 1980s to 2010.  We always strongly encouraged YM to go on a mission and were fairly string about it.

Rather it is likely YM just are not going becasue they do nto want to for a variety of reason so the leadership is doubling down.

[filovirus]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

Isn’t a huge part of whether it is a good thing or a bad thing the reason why they aren’t going on a mission?  I can imagine quite a few things I would be more joyful to hear than “I have submitted my mission papers”…such as “I have decided I will donate my kidney so this child can live, but that means I won’t be able to go on a mission for at least a while and maybe never”.

I can see one great reason not to go on a mission as a young man is an educational opportunity to get involved with a medical organization that then develops one’s skills and allows one to influence others to help those in need rather than just focus on those who can afford to pay massive fees for unusual medical services.  If one prays and is inspired by the Lord to take that route as in the end one will reach more to serve and maybe even influence with the gospel as it will open doors to teach, as long as one doesn’t later forsake that intent, it seems to me they are obeying God.  If they choose a medical career and don’t want to delay any and make a bargain with God ‘instead of a mission, I will do a lot of charity work, so let me off the hook of priesthood duty’, I would say that is likely a sin.  
 

There have in the past been sports figures and other celebrities who have shared that they were instructed by church leaders to not go on an official mission because they would achieve more by continuing in what was making them notable.  They were told they were serving a mission in their own way.  My guess was that was true when the Church was less well known.  I had a roommate at college who had a crush on Donny Osmond when younger and had explored everything about him, including the Church.  Eventually she switched to investigating the Gospel itself and became converted.  Now the Church is better known in the states, I see that purpose for not serving a mission isn’t much needed and we hear much more in the Church of the celebrities who put aside the fame to serve a typical mission.

I see the Restored Gospel as pretty practical.  We have the commandment to honor the Sabbath, but we are also taught those who must work on Sunday receive blessings still.  We see very few lines that are rigid in the Gospel in terms of this is how fulfillment of this commandment must be done.  Now those who choose to work Sundays because they want an excuse for missing church, I find it easy to call that a sin, but since people don’t typically share that as their intent, it would be wrong of me to assume any individual working on Sunday is sinning for that reason.  They may be obeying the higher law of providing for their families or loving their neighbour if their work is caregiving, for example.

Those who pray and are inspired not to go (truly inspired, not just convincing themselves it is okay) are imo being chosen to obey a higher law with God needing them to serve elsewhere to bring themselves and/or others to Him.

You are right in that there will be exceptions, but right now our current council from a prophet of God is this: "that the Lord has asked every worthy, able young man to prepare for and serve a mission. For Latter-day Saint young men, missionary service is a priesthood responsibility." (Russel M. Nelson, Sat Morning Session, April 2022 GC). So the question that worthy, able young men should be asking God is this: I am planning on fulfilling my responsibility to serve a mission unless You have a different plan for me?

But what is the parent's responsibility. In the same GC session, President Ballard said the following: "Fathers and mothers of these wonderful youth, you have a vital role in this preparation process. Begin today to talk with your children about missionary service. We know that the family is the most profound influence in helping our young men and young women prepare." (M. Russel Ballard, Sat Moring Session, April 2022 GC).

What is the vital role? Help to influence young men and women to prepare. But I do not see it as failing for the parents if the son does not choose to serve a mission, as long as the son was taught correctly regarding the charge to serve. This would be teaching them correct principles, but allowing them to use their moral agency to choose to follow the voice of the prophets.

Few knew the doctrine of moral agency better than Lehi and Sariah, yet they still let all of their sons choose for themselves whether they would or would not follow God. Do we fault them for Laman and Lemuel choosing a different path? I would hope not. Yet on the opposite side of the spectrum, Eli in the book of 1 Samuel failed to teach his children correct principles, and so his sons sins fell and his head and his posterity was no longer worthy of the calling he had.