The Continued Decline of Young Men Willing to Serve a Mission

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

What is the balance that you believe there needs to be (sincere question, not trying to be snarky)?  I think everyone on this thread (except maybe fether) has said that they do not support shaming YM for not going, nor do they support pressuring anyone to go.

 

My first son had no problems because he decided to go for himself and served faithfully for two years. My second son's experience was intense because he was unsure, and after many meetings his bishop put him through he came home one night and just lost it and hit the wall and sobbed. He decided against going. This son texted me the youtube below the other day disgusted and btw he's out of the church now. He didn't know of my faith issues back then, I kept it from my whole family for a long time. He's thirty now and a little anti after learning some things and came across Bill Reel's stuff. Notice the part where Elder Holland says there's no more pitiful group than those that go home. This is very damaging to the souls that do go home with not good enough excuses for the leaders I guess. That's what I mean by balance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3s5Wq4Z4kMk

Full transcript: "I hope there's no one within the sound of my voice who wants to go home. That just comes to me. It makes me wonder whether there's someone here who does want to go home. Because that wasn't even remotely in my mind. I don't know who you are, and I don't know how seriously you're entertaining the thought. But don't you ever go home. Don't you dare leave this place. Not for God's sake. Not for the church's sake. Not for President Hinckley's sake. Somehow I think they can probably handle it. But don't you dare leave here...for your sake. I have lived on and off, in my General Authority life, I have come in contact around the world with missionaries who did not see their mission through. I'm not talking about medical releases or emergencies or tragedies. I'm talking about somebody who just said, "I don't like doing this – it's too hard and I'm going home, and let my mother take care of me." I have met those people around the world. And if there is a more sorrowful, if there is a more anguished, and in a sense, if you promise not to misunderstand me, if there is, in a sense, a more pitiable group in all the world -- I do not know who it is. Now, that's strong language. That's really strong language. But I told you before. My mission means everything to me. I would. I would wrestle you to the floor. I would. I'd pull the curtains down. I'd get chains. I don't know, is there something around here that we can tie people with? I don't see anything to tie people with! I'd rip the chords off the television camera to keep you here. Not for our sake. Not for, you know. You think one little missionary in 58,000, you know, that isn't going to bring the church to its knees. But it's going to ruin your life if you don't do the best thing you ever had a chance to do. However hard it is. And however hard it may yet be."

 

 

 

[Durangout]

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

In my ward we have an opposite problem. We have kids who want to go on a mission with member parents who are ostensibly active but don’t want their kids to go.

That is extremely hard to believe…you mean there is one set of parents like this or multiple?

[mrmarklin]

I’ve pretty much read the thread. I’ll make the following comments. 
 

Pressure has always existed to encourage young men to serve a mission. I went in 1967. Going on a mission was preached heavily at youth meetings. And the “full court press” was put on me to go by both my parents and the bishop.  The pressure to go was not new in the 70s. 
 

I don’t believe avowed homosexuals were allowed to go then. I was asked if I was homosexual during a couple of pre mission interviews and looking back on it, I think had I said yes, I would have been disqualified.  BTW I’m not gay. A cursory Google and I can’t find what the policy is today. I don’t think they should go, but I can understand why some would. After all, it’s where the boys are. You all are aware that the armed services and the Catholic priesthood and other male oriented organizations attract gays for this reason, right?

As far as some not going now at 18, back in my day, that extra year was used many times to earn money to go on a mission. There are serious up front costs for clothing, etc that some families may struggle with. In my case, my parents made me spend all my savings on wardrobe. While on my mission my father sold my small motorcycle to defray expenses. I had no say in that. Obviously, we were not rich.
Frankly, I think it’s good to work, or go away to school for a year to gain some experience.  So there is that as well. 
 

I personally know a gay young man who served an honorable mission. I think at the time he had not come to terms with his homosexuality. He is well out of the closet 20 years later. 

[jkwilliams]

12 hours ago, Tacenda said:

My first son had no problems because he decided to go for himself and served faithfully for two years. My second son's experience was intense because he was unsure, and after many meetings his bishop put him through he came home one night and just lost it and hit the wall and sobbed. He decided against going. This son texted me the youtube below the other day disgusted and btw he's out of the church now. He didn't know of my faith issues back then, I kept it from my whole family for a long time. He's thirty now and a little anti after learning some things and came across Bill Reel's stuff. Notice the part where Elder Holland says there's no more pitiful group than those that go home. This is very damaging to the souls that do go home with not good enough excuses for the leaders I guess. That's what I mean by balance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3s5Wq4Z4kMk

Full transcript: "I hope there's no one within the sound of my voice who wants to go home. That just comes to me. It makes me wonder whether there's someone here who does want to go home. Because that wasn't even remotely in my mind. I don't know who you are, and I don't know how seriously you're entertaining the thought. But don't you ever go home. Don't you dare leave this place. Not for God's sake. Not for the church's sake. Not for President Hinckley's sake. Somehow I think they can probably handle it. But don't you dare leave here...for your sake. I have lived on and off, in my General Authority life, I have come in contact around the world with missionaries who did not see their mission through. I'm not talking about medical releases or emergencies or tragedies. I'm talking about somebody who just said, "I don't like doing this – it's too hard and I'm going home, and let my mother take care of me." I have met those people around the world. And if there is a more sorrowful, if there is a more anguished, and in a sense, if you promise not to misunderstand me, if there is, in a sense, a more pitiable group in all the world -- I do not know who it is. Now, that's strong language. That's really strong language. But I told you before. My mission means everything to me. I would. I would wrestle you to the floor. I would. I'd pull the curtains down. I'd get chains. I don't know, is there something around here that we can tie people with? I don't see anything to tie people with! I'd rip the chords off the television camera to keep you here. Not for our sake. Not for, you know. You think one little missionary in 58,000, you know, that isn't going to bring the church to its knees. But it's going to ruin your life if you don't do the best thing you ever had a chance to do. However hard it is. And however hard it may yet be."

 

 

 

I remember my mission president relating a conversation he'd had with President Monson about this topic. President Monson said that, at the start of his term as mission president, he would have done everything possible to keep a missionary from going home early. But experience had taught him that missionaries who don't want to be there should be allowed to go home, as it's better for them and better for the mission. As I recall, he likened keeping such missionaries in the mission to "babysitting." I had heard the audio from Elder Holland, and I had refrained from commenting, mostly because it seems so over the top to me. 

I must say I'm still chuckling over the idea that the church tolerates gay missionaries telling their companions about their past sexual conquests. If I had had a companion who was constantly going on about his past dates, heterosexual or not, I would just tell him to shut up about it, as the last thing a missionary needs is to think about dating and/or sex. If that companion wouldn't stop talking about it, I'd probably ask the mission president for a different companion. Nothing to do with homosexuality, just common sense. 

Edited August 15, 2022 by jkwilliams

[MiserereNobis]

16 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The made up idea that public school teachers are spending their days in the classroom proclaiming that God isn’t real and the Bible is bad?

Well, we are studying existentialism so I had my high school students read some Nietzsche…

but at the same time I had them take a quiz over their required summer Bible reading, so it all balanced out. 

[JAHS]

7 hours ago, Moneymaking said:

So now if a young man chooses to serve in the military it is a dishonorable choice right? Or do they get a pass like the GAs get?

It is not a dishonorable choice; it is simply a choice between the two and a reasonable one if our country was at war with someone like we were at the time the GAs were that age.

[MustardSeed]

So what will happen if a young man chooses not to go?

Answer: None of my business.

IMO

[SkyRock]

I was informed yesterday by a high council member that an apostle is meeting with stake presidents around here in the coming weeks regarding this topic.  He said that since covid, missionary numbers have dropped substantially since 2019 levels.   

In our ward, we had 8 active young men out of about 10 go on missions over last 3.5 years.  We had only 2 young women go during that period.  We just had 3 homecoming addresses over the last 2 months. 

Right now our priest quorum is large and most of the active ones are intending to go.  Several of the 7 active girls who just graduated high school also intend to serve.

[bluebell]

11 hours ago, Tacenda said:

My first son had no problems because he decided to go for himself and served faithfully for two years. My second son's experience was intense because he was unsure, and after many meetings his bishop put him through he came home one night and just lost it and hit the wall and sobbed. He decided against going. This son texted me the youtube below the other day disgusted and btw he's out of the church now. He didn't know of my faith issues back then, I kept it from my whole family for a long time. He's thirty now and a little anti after learning some things and came across Bill Reel's stuff. Notice the part where Elder Holland says there's no more pitiful group than those that go home. This is very damaging to the souls that do go home with not good enough excuses for the leaders I guess. That's what I mean by balance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3s5Wq4Z4kMk

Full transcript: "I hope there's no one within the sound of my voice who wants to go home. That just comes to me. It makes me wonder whether there's someone here who does want to go home. Because that wasn't even remotely in my mind. I don't know who you are, and I don't know how seriously you're entertaining the thought. But don't you ever go home. Don't you dare leave this place. Not for God's sake. Not for the church's sake. Not for President Hinckley's sake. Somehow I think they can probably handle it. But don't you dare leave here...for your sake. I have lived on and off, in my General Authority life, I have come in contact around the world with missionaries who did not see their mission through. I'm not talking about medical releases or emergencies or tragedies. I'm talking about somebody who just said, "I don't like doing this – it's too hard and I'm going home, and let my mother take care of me." I have met those people around the world. And if there is a more sorrowful, if there is a more anguished, and in a sense, if you promise not to misunderstand me, if there is, in a sense, a more pitiable group in all the world -- I do not know who it is. Now, that's strong language. That's really strong language. But I told you before. My mission means everything to me. I would. I would wrestle you to the floor. I would. I'd pull the curtains down. I'd get chains. I don't know, is there something around here that we can tie people with? I don't see anything to tie people with! I'd rip the chords off the television camera to keep you here. Not for our sake. Not for, you know. You think one little missionary in 58,000, you know, that isn't going to bring the church to its knees. But it's going to ruin your life if you don't do the best thing you ever had a chance to do. However hard it is. And however hard it may yet be."

 

 

 

What I hear Elder Holland saying is that he had never met an elder--who went home early because he didn't like the mission because it was too much work--who didn't deeply regret it later, and that he would not want anyone to go through those feels and pleads against that decision. 

I think there is plenty of room for Elder Holland to be wrong on that statement (of every elder who leaves under those circumstances to be deeply regretful), but I don't see how that statement is itself harmful.

If someone says "don't do this because you'll regret it" and then you do it and you don't regret it, how have you been damaged by that person?

**I'm sorry that your second son suffered so much with that decision and with being pressured.  I think that many leaders have learned that lesson the hard way and have stopped pressuring so much.  It's not helpful.

[Tacenda]

9 hours ago, Moneymaking said:

So now if a young man chooses to serve in the military it is a dishonorable choice right? Or do they get a pass like the GAs get?

Hadn't thought of that!

[YJacket]

14 hours ago, Raingirl said:

I actually dislike the term homophobia, but for you, I think it might actually be appropriate. 

No you don't; you use the term as a weapon to brand anyone who asks uncomfortable questions. Rather than answer the question you call people names.

It's a classic tactic for those who do not want their false god ideology questioned.

[jkwilliams]

20 minutes ago, bluebell said:

What I hear Elder Holland saying is that he had never met an elder--who went home early because he didn't like the mission because it was too much work--who didn't deeply regret it later, and that he would not want anyone to go through those feels and pleads against that decision. 

I think there is plenty of room for Elder Holland to be wrong on that statement (of every elder who leaves under those circumstances to be deeply regretful), but I don't see how that statement is itself harmful.

If someone says "don't do this because you'll regret it" and then you do it and you don't regret it, how have you been damaged by that person?

**I'm sorry that your second son suffered so much with that decision and with being pressured.  I think that many leaders have learned that lesson the hard way and have stopped pressuring so much.  It's not helpful.

I wouldn't have a problem with that, per se. It's just that he was so over the top in saying that people who go home early are miserable, pitiable people and that he would tie people up to keep them in the mission. Really?

[YJacket]

14 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I was going to claim I lived most of this. I had a gay companion.  I have to admit it doesn’t exactly match since you put the word “openly” is in there. I guess “don’t ask, don’t tell” removes the potential danger then? So homosexual missionaries can serve as long as they are closeted? 

No it does not match what I wrote.  I am very specific with what I write. I wouldn't say a "don't ask, don't tell" removes all the danger.  There are always going to be individuals who flaunt their wicked proclivities.

As long as one is not advocating for their own sinful inherent proclivities and discussing with others that sinful proclivity then I do not have a problem with it.

Let's put it this way.

Is it acceptable for a missionary who was a marijuana addict before his mission to OPENLY proclaim to all the world he was a drug addict; and not just that he was a drug addict but that there is nothing wrong with it.  That he only stopped so he could serve a mission, but really, inherently there is nothing wrong with thinking about getting high, desiring to get high, actually getting high . . .as long as he didn't drive while high.  It was really truly honestly the driving while high that was maybe, possible wrong.  But everything else-well that's totally acceptable.

Would it be appropriate to stick another young man who has never done drugs, never really even thought about doing marijuana with this openly marijuana accepting missionary-who stated-well as long as you don't drive while high, it's all good with God?

Now let's contrast that with a "don't ask, don't tell" policy.  Which would be a young man who in his heart loves getting high but recognizes that telling others about how he loved to get high is totally unacceptable and will lead to discipline from the MP.  He is absolutely going to be circumspect about who exactly he discussing his love of getting high with; most likely -unless he is paired with another missionary who also secretly loves getting high- he will serve a great mission and no one will really know.  Sure some people might suspect he loves getting high-but in the end that's all it will be.  He is not advocating for it, he is not promoting he, he is not saying it's good to get high as long as you don't drive high.

So, no I do not have a problem at all with a missionary who in his heart has ungodly desire towards the same-sex serving a mission as long as he is not open about it.  Just as much as I wouldn't have a problem with a missionary who in his heart loves getting high as long as he is not open about it.

Big, big difference between open and closed.

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I wouldn't have a problem with that, per se. It's just that he was so over the top in saying that people who go home early are miserable, pitiable people and that he would tie people up to keep them in the mission. Really?

He seems to be one of those people where emotions are strong and often on the surface.  If he's empathetic by nature, and really had had experiences with people being miserable after leaving, I can see why he would speak so strongly about it at one specific meeting.  Especially if he believed the spirit was very strong on that point as well.

This doesn't seem to be a topic that he spoke on often though.  Do we have him speaking so strongly on this topic to all missionaries in general ever?  Or was this a one time moment?

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

He seems to be one of those people where emotions are strong and often on the surface.  If he's empathetic by nature, and really had had experiences with people being miserable after leaving, I can see why he would speak so strongly about it at one specific meeting.  Especially if he believed the spirit was very strong on that point as well.

This doesn't seem to be a topic that he spoke on often though.  Do we have him speaking so strongly on this topic to all missionaries in general ever?  Or was this a one time moment?

I couldn't say either way, but it just seemed way over the top. Missionaries get enough guilt and pressure already, IMO. 

[bluebell]

Just now, jkwilliams said:

I couldn't say either way, but it just seemed way over the top. Missionaries get enough guilt and pressure already, IMO. 

I can see why some would view it that way.  It's very easy to be over the top on subjects that are very strongly felt.  

[YJacket]

14 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I feel sorry for your son.

You want me to rationally debate a missionary’s gay panic at working with a gay guy? That is an emotional situation. It is not rational. Only an emotionally stunted individual would believe gay panic is something that needs a lot of rational debate. I would know. I just learned I am emotionally stunted.

Says the person scared the gay missionary is going to give him cooties.

"gay panic".  Yes, so you dismiss anyone's concerns as emotional. Let's see how consistent you really are.

Single young men should serve with single young women as companions for missionary service. 

Any young woman who has any anxiety or concern about this new arraignment is simply having an emotional reaction.  Only an emotionally stunted individual would believe that the panic of a single young woman serving 24-7 with a single young man is something that needs rational debate.

So you are perfectly fine having this arrangement?

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

I can see why some would view it that way.  It's very easy to be over the top on subjects that are very strongly felt.  

Maybe it's just that my experience with general authorities on my mission was being yelled at for our perceived failures. This just sounded like more of that to me. 

[YJacket]

15 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I stand by what I said: you are criticizing your own church for “changing standards.” Apparently, it upsets you that gay members can be open about their orientation as long as they remain celibate. Again, what is it that has you so upset?

So it's appropriate to be homosexual in the mind and tell everyone their ungodly sexual desires as long as they don't "act on it".

Can I get up in front of the ward and tell the entire ward how sexy the RS President is, how I'm "sexually attracted to her"-she's not my wife.  But don't worry, I only have intimate relations with my wife!

That's what you are advocating for.

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, YJacket said:

So you are perfectly fine having this arrangement?

You have proved that the Church has sanctioned gay missionaries who are both open and provocative about past and current attractions. Everyone else here has confirmed their experience is counter to that.  So it seems you are creating a strawman and asking us to beat it up for you.

——

But you made me curious with the above question.

Do men typically worry about other men being stronger than them and therefore being able to rape them if sexual pressure doesn’t work?  Sincere question.  My experience with women and being a woman is we unfortunately have to factor the strength difference in as well as a cultural perception in the greater culture (I have seen it less in church culture where the young men at least are more likely to treat young women as sisters if not significantly attracted to them, but perhaps that is not typical) that it is acceptable for men to act on their attraction even without likely similar feelings in the woman…that enough men often believe they will be able to convince a woman to like them, that it is automatic for a woman to like them, or that it doesn’t matter whether or not the woman likes than as it is only their feelings that matter, so that it is wise for a woman not to put herself into a situation where she can’t easily retreat if any sort of pressure is present.

I do think if a gay missionary is significantly attracted to his companion, for his own sake it would be a good idea to request a change simply because it would be a distraction at the very least.  But just as heterosexual men are typically not universally attracted to all women, homosexual men are typically not attracted to all men.  If there is no attraction and the companions are respectful, what is the issue?

 

Edited August 15, 2022 by Calm

[YJacket]

14 hours ago, bluebell said:

No, the bolded is not "absolutely sanctioned by the church today".

It's not?
https://www.facebook.com/liftandloveorg/posts/pfbid0DfwrfexAB1YwCmZHsiTdgKkLxyY7PqrGfNjfHYcT7N7SZb5bhNekU4ik7Xh2yWYrl

He was open with his stake president about the fact that he had dated men before his mission, and his family (and stake president) believe that the law of chastity is and should be the same for everyone. “It’s not the law of ‘you can’t hold hands, date, or kiss someone’,”

The president committed not to let that experience repeat and has thus made it a priority to make his mission a zone of safety and love for all. He even did a mission wide training with Elder Carpenter’s help on how to best minister to our LGBTQ+ community.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, YJacket said:

So it's appropriate to be homosexual in the mind and tell everyone their ungodly sexual desires as long as they don't "act on it".

Can I get up in front of the ward and tell the entire ward how sexy the RS President is, how I'm "sexually attracted to her"-she's not my wife.  But don't worry, I only have intimate relations with my wife!

That's what you are advocating for.

Being open about your sexual orientation is not the same as telling your companion you think he's hot, just as being open in your heterosexuality doesn't mean you get up in sacrament meeting to tell the RS president she's hot. Are you really this obtuse?

I have a good friend who is active in the church (he's executive secretary in his ward) and is open about being gay; he has never acted on his desires, but pretty much everyone in his ward knows he's gay. He served an honorable mission and is an all-around good guy. Last I checked, he's not making passes at the high council or bearing testimony of whatever fetishes he might have. That you think this is how gay people think says way more about you than it does about them. 

[YJacket]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Do men typically worry about other men being stronger than them and therefore being able to rape them if sexual pressure doesn’t work?  Sincere question.

So as long as the young man is smaller than the young woman it would be perfectly fine?  

[YJacket]

14 hours ago, bluebell said:

No, the bolded is not "absolutely sanctioned by the church today".

What do you think is going to happen when the LGBTQETC is held up and lauded as the paragon of virtue?

MP holds a diversity and inclusion mission-wide training about how to treat LGBTQ.

Missionary companion gets hit on by homosexual companion:

"Hey Mission President, I think my companion is hitting on me."

"No, Elder, I think you are mistaken, that didn't really happen".

Look at this thread here; look at the amount of shaming, and downright emotional abuse going on.  No, no, the OPENLY homosexual missionary who dated men prior to his mission who thinks its perfectly fine would NEVER, EVER, EVER do anything to another young man on his mission.

It's only shame, shame, shame.  You are the bad one, you are the bigoted, evil, nasty, wicked person who needs to repent if you even mention that it is a possibility that a man who openly proclaims he is sexually attracted to other men would possibly hit on another young man who he spends time with 24-7!

[YJacket]

14 hours ago, JAHS said:

The companion will let his Mission president know what is happening and if that missionary continues to do it he will be sent home.

Really?  I don't think that will happen for a moment.  The missionary will know intrinsically that for him to speak up against those who are held up as a paragon of virtue would mean societal death for him. He would be called the same names I have been called.  Bigot, homophobe, intolerant.

And you know it too.  You'd like to believe that is what would happen, but you know it won't.

The societal pressure will not allow ANY negative reporting about LGBTQETC and missionaries have gotten the message.  They won't speak up-they know it's forbotten; b/c no one wants to actually know the truth.