The Continued Decline of Young Men Willing to Serve a Mission

[Danzo]

8 minutes ago, 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

Actually, you are covenanting that you are willing  to keep his commandments. Not that you keep the commandments.  None of us is capable of following all the commandments.  We can only show we are willing. 

Edited August 9, 2022 by Danzo

[jkwilliams]

My youngest son is 23 and was active in the church until his freshman year of college. I asked him if he was ever taught that his baptismal covenant meant that he had covenanted to serve a mission. 

His response: “What? Who said that? That’s insane.” 

Edited August 9, 2022 by jkwilliams

[Rock_N_Roll]

12 minutes ago, Fether said:

Baptismal covenant: obey God commandments

God commands all young men to serve missions

all young men should serve missions.

too complicated?

 

additionally, when endowed, you covenant to consecrate all you have to the building of Zion.

So, you're saying the First Presidency had 8 years to decide to serve a mission?  Remember the Korean war only lasted 4 years. 

[Fether]

17 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I guess I missed the part where serving a mission is a commandment and therefore part of the baptismal covenant. Again, this is way different from the church I know. 

16 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Honest question: can you cite something to indicate that serving a mission is a commandment?

At this point, I’m not regretting at all that my three boys weren’t exposed to this stuff. 

 

 

@Fair Dinkum

 

Are just pretending prophets since Spencer w kimball haven’t been saying this?

“Today I reaffirm strongly 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.” - Pres Nelson

“The question has been often asked, Is the mission program one of compulsion? And the answer, of course, is no. Everyone is given his free agency. The question is asked: Should every young man fill a mission? And the answer of the Church is yes, and the answer of the Lord is yes. Enlarging this answer we say: Certainly every male member of the Church should fill a mission, like he should pay his tithing, like he should attend his meetings, like he should keep his life clean and free from the ugliness of the world and plan a celestial marriage in the temple of the Lord” (Spencer W. Kimball, “Planning for a Full and Abundant Life”, Ensign, May 1974, 86).
 

“Earlier prophets have taught that every able, worthy young man should serve a full-time mission. I emphasize this need today” (Howard W. Hunter, “Follow the Son of God”, Ensign, Nov. 1994, 87).
 

“The Lord wants every young man to serve a full-time mission. Currently, only a fifth of the eligible young men in the Church are serving full-time missions. This is not pleasing to the Lord. We can do better. We must do better. Not only should a mission be regarded as a priesthood duty, but every young man should look forward to this experience with great joy and anticipation. What a privilege—what a sacred privilege—to serve the Lord full time for two years with all your heart, might, mind, and strength.

You can do nothing more important. School can wait. Scholarships can be deferred. Occupational goals can be postponed. Yes, even temple marriage should wait until after a young man has served an honorable full-time mission for the Lord.” (Ensign, May 1986, pp. 44–45).

“In fulfillment of this command, able young men in the Church have a duty to prepare spiritually, physically, and emotionally to serve as full-time missionaries.” (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/missionary-work?lang=eng)

 

 

you can complain and disagree all you want, but let’s stop pretending this isnt a command from God. Or at the very least, admit out loud that you don’t think the Prophet speaks for God.

Edited August 9, 2022 by Fether

[bluebell]

21 minutes ago, Fether said:

I’m incredibly irritated by this type of sophistry and acting as if it is all an appropriate alternative. The Church, the Prophet, all the leadership. They are all saying the same thing. It is every young man’s duty to serve a full time mission.

You are saying “it’s ok to sin today as long as you repent later”

(you do realize repenting of refusing missionary service requires you to take the stance that it is all able young men’s duties to serve missions and to preach such things, right?)

That’s not at all what I hear him saying. What I hear him saying is that the Atonement works for everyone, including those who chose not to serve but later regret that decision.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Fether said:

 

@Fair Dinkum

 

Are just pretending prophets since Spencer w kimball haven’t been saying this?

“Today I reaffirm strongly 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.” - Pres Nelson

“The question has been often asked, Is the mission program one of compulsion? And the answer, of course, is no. Everyone is given his free agency. The question is asked: Should every young man fill a mission? And the answer of the Church is yes, and the answer of the Lord is yes. Enlarging this answer we say: Certainly every male member of the Church should fill a mission, like he should pay his tithing, like he should attend his meetings, like he should keep his life clean and free from the ugliness of the world and plan a celestial marriage in the temple of the Lord” (Spencer W. Kimball, “Planning for a Full and Abundant Life”, Ensign, May 1974, 86).
 

“Earlier prophets have taught that every able, worthy young man should serve a full-time mission. I emphasize this need today” (Howard W. Hunter, “Follow the Son of God”, Ensign, Nov. 1994, 87).
 

“The Lord wants every young man to serve a full-time mission. Currently, only a fifth of the eligible young men in the Church are serving full-time missions. This is not pleasing to the Lord. We can do better. We must do better. Not only should a mission be regarded as a priesthood duty, but every young man should look forward to this experience with great joy and anticipation. What a privilege—what a sacred privilege—to serve the Lord full time for two years with all your heart, might, mind, and strength.

You can do nothing more important. School can wait. Scholarships can be deferred. Occupational goals can be postponed. Yes, even temple marriage should wait until after a young man has served an honorable full-time mission for the Lord.” (Ensign, May 1986, pp. 44–45).

“In fulfillment of this command, able young men in the Church have a duty to prepare spiritually, physically, and emotionally to serve as full-time missionaries.” (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/missionary-work?lang=eng)

 

 

you can complain and disagree all you want, but let’s stop pretending this is t a command from God. Or at the very least, admit out loud that you don’t think the Prophet speaks for God.

So, now we’re being disingenuous? 

[Fether]

5 minutes ago, Rock_N_Roll said:

So, you're saying the First Presidency had 8 years to decide to serve a mission?  Remember the Korean war only lasted 4 years. 

Please catch up on the convo before you start talking. The command to serve didn’t start till the 70s

[Fether]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

That’s not at all what I hear him saying. What I hear him saying is that the Atonement works for everyone, including those who chose not to serve but later regret that decision.

Which I fully believe and support. What I do not support is rejecting the idea that this is a commandment from God and we should t persuade young men to serve

[Fether]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

So, now we’re being disingenuous? 

That, or mistaken. Which is it?

[bluebell]

Just now, Fether said:

Which I fully believe and support. What I do not support is rejecting the idea that this is a commandment from God and we should t persuade young men to serve

Did Danzo say that somewhere?

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Fether said:

That, or mistaken. Which is it?

Neither. I’m well aware of the emphasis on serving a mission. I’ve never heard it referred to as a commandment. If you don’t serve a mission, you can get married in the temple without repenting of not serving a mission. The things you quoted say “should” a lot, which is how I remember it. I’ve never heard anyone say you must and that you are violating your covenants if you don’t serve. That must be pretty recent. 

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Did Danzo say that somewhere?

I think I did. I don’t ever recall being taught it was a commandment. You’d think I would have noticed that in 40 years of church activity. 

[ksfisher]

5 minutes ago, Fether said:

the Lord has asked every worthy, able young man to prepare for and serve a mission

How do we define able in this context?  Physically, mentally, spiritually, financially?  While I agree that every able young man should serve a mission, I think it's up to the young man to decide if he's able or not. 

[Fether]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

Neither. I’m well aware of the emphasis on serving a mission. I’ve never heard it referred to as a commandment. If you don’t serve a mission, you can get married in the temple without repenting of not serving a mission. The things you quoted say “should” a lot, which is how I remember it. I’ve never heard anyone say you must and that you are violating your covenants if you don’t serve. That must be pretty recent. 

Do you believe that if something doesn’t keep you from entering the temple, it is not a sin?

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Fether said:

Do you believe that if something doesn’t keep you from entering the temple, it is not a sin?

No, but I’ve never heard anyone being told they need to repent for not serving a mission. Have you?

[Fair Dinkum]

2 hours ago, Fether said:

I’m incredibly irritated by this type of sophistry and acting as if it is all an appropriate alternative. The Church, the Prophet, all the leadership. They are all saying the same thing. It is every young man’s duty to serve a full time mission.

You are saying “it’s ok to sin today as long as you repent later”

(you do realize repenting of refusing missionary service requires you to take the stance that it is all able young men’s duties to serve missions and to preach such things, right?)

It is this exactly the kind of shaming that is driving the youth of today away from the church.  Keep it up and you'll have no one left.  The churches very website states that missions are voluntary...and we hear conference talks that tell these same youth that missions are a priesthood obligation.  Its a mixed message, and they're speaking out of both sides of their mouths. There is this assumption that they have no agency and it an obligation...no wonder so many are leaving.

Edited August 9, 2022 by Fair Dinkum

[Fether]

Just now, jkwilliams said:

No, but I’ve never heard anyone being told they need to repent for not serving a mission. Have you?

I have not. But I don’t think a call to repentance is what dictates what is a sin and what is not.

I prefer the scriptural definition. Particularly James 4:17

[ksfisher]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I’ve never heard anyone say you must and that you are violating your covenants if you don’t serve. That must be pretty recent.

You've never heard it because no one (in leadership) has said it. 

[Fether]

Just now, Fair Dinkum said:

It is this exact kind of shaming that is driving the youth of today away from the church.  Keep it up and you'll have no one left.  The churches very website states that missions are voluntary...and yet there is this assumption that they have no agency and it an obligation...no wonder so many are leaving.

I only get this heated when people are teaching false doctrine. I’m talking to youth, I would speak very differently

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Fair Dinkum said:

It is this exact kind of shaming that is driving the youth of today away from the church.  Keep it up and you'll have no one left.  The churches very website states that missions are voluntary...and yet there is this assumption that they have no agency and it an obligation...no wonder so many are leaving.

That’s a good point: how is a mandatory requirement in any way voluntary? 

[Fair Dinkum]

9 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Neither. I’m well aware of the emphasis on serving a mission. I’ve never heard it referred to as a commandment. If you don’t serve a mission, you can get married in the temple without repenting of not serving a mission. The things you quoted say “should” a lot, which is how I remember it. I’ve never heard anyone say you must and that you are violating your covenants if you don’t serve. That must be pretty recent. 

This last 5th Sunday it was taught as a priesthood obligation

[Fair Dinkum]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

That’s a good point: how is a mandatory requirement in any way voluntary? 

Doublespeak

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Fether said:

I only get this heated when people are teaching false doctrine. I’m talking to youth, I would speak very differently

I’m not heated at all, and I apologize if I’ve contributed to any heat here. I’m genuinely surprised at this hard line on missions. Yes, we had pressure to serve a mission, but not like this. 

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

This last 5th Sunday it was taught as a priesthood obligation

I always considered it like the encouragement to get married. Yes, God expects it (at least according to church teachings), but it doesn’t always happen for various reasons. Doesn’t mean the person is committing sin. 

[jkwilliams]

7 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

You've never heard it because no one (in leadership) has said it. 

I was beginning to think I must not have been paying attention for 40 years. I feel better.