posted
My friend works at a place called The Donut Haus. He had a coworker, John, who's a member of the LDS church. John recently had to quit. Here's a little clip of the conversation:
"Why are you quitting?"
"I have to go on a mission."
"you HAVE to?"
"Yeah, the church will kick me out if I don't go."
Wait a mintue. I've always heard that missions were completely voluntary. What's the deal here? Are they required, or was the guy exaggerating?
Posts: 1591 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nobody's required. All guys are encouraged to go if they can. Girls can go if they want to, but it's up to them.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
All worthy, healthy young men are encouraged to go, but it's not mandatory.
But people often feel incredibly pressured to. From family, friends, bishop, etc. They feel like if they DON'T go then they will completely lose the fellowship of those people, as is often the case. Which is sad, since I don't think a person should go on a mission because people pressure him to. He should go on one because he genuinly wants to.
Posts: 290 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nobody will get kicked out if they don't go.
Either your friend misheard, you misheard, or like Jon Boy said, the guy is exaggerating or is misinformed.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Its especially important that missions be undertaken by individuals who choose to go and prepare diligently.
The LDS church does not kick people out for not going on missions, in fact recently the Prophet asked that the standard for those accepting mission calls be raised, narrowing the potential population that would go on missions to those that really want to be there and have shown so by the way they live.
Posts: 686 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, they raised the bar, but they made it clear that they want everyone to rise to meet the new standards. Also, I'm pretty sure that serving a mission is still a commandment, not a "strong encouragement."
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that the phrase "strong encouragement" accurately describes a commandment that there is no punishment for disobeying Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Port, not-paying-tithing means you aren't temple-worthy. Not-going-on-a-mission has no such effect.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
But I'm moderately sure (as in, I haven't verified it myslef) that President Kimball said that it was no more optinoal than tithing.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm going with Puppy on this one. Disobeying the commandment to pay tithing will prevent someone from being worthy to enter the temple. Choosing not to go on a mission only causes the aformentioned social stigma. While that can often lead to people falling away from the church (Understandably, faithful members of the church should not treat someone differently because they chose not to serve a mission), the church does absoultely nothing to those who make that choice.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also keep in mind many RM's fall away too, often the stigma is actually percieved. I myself find "ostracism" is a great way to placate my conscience when I dont go to church. Although I am an RM I haven't followed the normal pattern for others in my ward (college, familiy, kids) and there are those who look down on me for it. However when I use them as an excuse I lose out. With intorspection it seems that my continued lack of activity and that of my friends who did not serve missions is actually more a symptom of commitment issues. Considering that the Mission is the "big one" as far as commitment to church is concerned you can see why it's a point of conflict among many of the LDS faith.
Posts: 686 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: "Yeah, the church will kick me out if I don't go."
I think it's unfortunate that he feels this way, and I agree with aragorn that in this case it's probably an issue of social and religious pressures, which in this culture can get pretty severe. I don't believe he will get kicked out for not going (or the church would be a lot smaller), but he may be treated in such a way as to make him feel he's no longer an accepted part of the community. I felt that pressure when I decided to go on a mission. It was only one of many factors in my decision, and in my case it was just a small one, but I felt it for sure.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
The question is frequently asked: Should every young man fill a mission? And the answer has been given by the Lord. It is ‘Yes.’ Every young man should fill a mission. …
… Every man should also pay his tithing. Every man should observe the Sabbath. Every man should attend his meetings. Every man should marry in the temple (“When the World Will Be Converted,” Ensign, Oct. 1974, p. 8).
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: I think that the phrase "strong encouragement" accurately describes a commandment that there is no punishment for disobeying
Perhaps there's no punishment undertaken by the Church here on Earth. They may not have specifically enumerated what punishments are in store for people who don't serve missions, but there's no denying that the word "commandment" has been used by several prophets in reference to missionary service.
One other thought. It's possible that this kid's parents are pressuring him into going on a mission, and although he realizes that he won't literally get kicked out of the Church, his snarky remark is his way of expressing dissatisfaction with the situation.
posted
Perhaps, however that doesn't start the mission on the right foot. If the individual said that in jest, obfuscation or in earnest I wonder if he really has met the spirit of raised bar anyway. I don't know if I would have enjoyed being his comp. Definitely sounds like a case of conscripts synrome to me. I am not saying that he may not become a good missionary before it ends; however the stated purpose of the raised bar is that missionaries who are ready to go both spiritually and doctrinally, are what is needed.
Posts: 686 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: I think that the phrase "strong encouragement" accurately describes a commandment that there is no punishment for disobeying
One other comment about this post:
According to Mormon theology as I understand it, there are no "punishments" as such for breaking commandments. In other words, God doesn't spend his time coming up with inventive new ways of torturing people who don't do what he says. His commandments are just the ways that he tells how we can live our lives to our best advantage. Sometimes he spells out the natural consequences of our deviation from the path that he lays out, and sometimes (or perhaps always at some level) he just asks that we trust that what he says is for the best.
When he spells out the consequences of sin, it doesn't mean he's waiting to punish us. And when he doesn't spell it out, it doesn't mean that we're going to get off free ignoring that commandment. Perhaps the only consequence of disobeying the commandment to serve a mission is that we won't live up to our full potential in this life. And perhaps, if you believe in him, that's enough.
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think your friend might be mad and is just saying he is being forced. Or his parents may be forcing him to go *or else*. But the church certainly doesn't have any punishments for not going.
I think the negativity surounding those who don't go was pretty high in the past and was hard to get around. It is the same as the greek clubs in college. You are either one of them or you aren't. It is like that with missions and so those who don't go, even if they have a good reason (like they converted when they were adults) they still aren't part of the "in crowd". But I think recently this has changed because being in the "in crowd" is become less appealing, and less and less "righteous" people are in the "in crowd".
I think they are raising the requirements for missions to try to stop young men from spending their entire youth in sin and then "repenting" months before going on their mission. I know in my mission there were huge discipline problems from young men who did this.
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
[quote]It is like that with missions and so those who don't go, even if they have a good reason (like they converted when they were adults) they still aren't part of the "in crowd". But I think recently this has changed because being in the "in crowd" is become less appealing, and less and less "righteous" people are in the "in crowd".[\quote]I don´t agree with either statement at all.
The best part about being an adult is that while there are still groups, there´s less looking at each other. In other words, outside of singles wards ( ), there is no "in" crowd.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I was a teenager, there was a guy who married a girl instead of going on a mission. I was very aware of the fact that he was a "second-class citizen" in the ward because of it. As he got older that slowly wore off and he started to be taken seriously.
But missions aren't the only thing that falls in this category. Got an uncontrollable kid? Go through a divorce? Work on Sunday? Watch R rated movies?
There are all kinds of things that determine your social hierarchy in the ward that really has nothing to do with who you are or your standing with the commandments. Having gone on a mission is one of them. It is a social thing. You don't have to go to the bishop and repent for not going on a mission. But you do if you've intentionally looked at porn, drank coffee/alcohol, or smoked.
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Got an uncontrollable kid? Go through a divorce? Work on Sunday? Watch R rated movies?
I've been in wards like that. Luckily, in the stake I'm in now, none of these things results in any lesser acceptance from anyone. Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
KQ, how can you be sure of that so quickly?
(I don't mean anything bad by that. But I've been thinking lately about how certain people and groups and even church groups can look one way, then when you really get to know them, find out all sorts of dirt you didn't see at ALL for the longest time. Maybe I'm just more gullible.)
Posts: 1014 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Theaca, I lived in this stake for two years before I got married. Well, actually, I lived in the stake my whole life, but wasn't a member until two years before I got married.
So I already know many of the people very well, and most of the rest of them at least casually. There's a very different attitude in this stake than the last one I lived in. I've noticed it often follows the leadership-- if the leadership of a ward or stake displays a certain attitude, good or bad, the whole ward or stake picks up on it.
We have wonderful leadership here. (Can't say that for the last couple of wards I was in, unfortunately. Although the last one was much better than the one before that.)
(I've also noticed that a lot more divorcées tend to join the church in this area. I think there's a less condemning attitude toward it. Not that a life-long and eternal commitment isn't still the standard here, but I've seen people investigate the church and not join because they are divorced and a ward has a hostile attitude toward divorcées.)
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doesn't leadership change completely every year or two? I would think that would make it hard to have a consistently good ward long-term.
Posts: 1014 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And as an afterthought, although it perhaps should have been a forethought, ward leadership usually doesn't drastically alter whether a ward is "good" or not. If it does change drastically, it usally only does so for the positive. Bringing in a good bishopric after having a bishopric which has had some problems, whatever they may be, can make for a very positive experience. This is of course a generalization, and based entirely on my experience.
Posts: 42 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that good leadership is called when the Saints in an area are good people. Since they're called locally, it makes sense. But an especially good bishop can make a good ward even better, and it can have a lasting effect on those who live there and on the next bishop called.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
For the person who got married instead of going on a mission, there probably wasn't approval. It does go away - I'll bet he was still young when you knew of him.
I feel so worldweary when I say this, but that does go away. It feels like it will make you a second class citzen and everyone is looking down on you because you're young. Honestly - people don't care that much. Current life matters a great deal more. When you're 20 and didn't go, that is your current life. When you're 30 and active and didn't go, it so does not matter.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to agree that change in leadership doesn't change much of the Ward for good or ill. I have noticed that the ward usually remains the same because changes are made at individual rather than leadership levels. After all, the leaders are picked from the general membership and therefore interactions have already been developed. Not that there aren't minor changes from one leadership administration to another.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can I just take this opportunity, in case it wasn't made clear by the rest of this thread, to say that T_Smith is a good for nothing worthless sack of crap who will never fit in among the rest of us solid citizens.
posted
I would like to touch up some on what Speed and Puppy have said--for the sake of non-Mormons who were never Mormons (unlike me, a non-Mormon who was a Mormon who went on a Mission).
Let's start with Speed.
quote: When he spells out the consequences of sin, it doesn't mean he's waiting to punish us. And when he doesn't spell it out, it doesn't mean that we're going to get off free ignoring that commandment.
This is true, and central to Mormon theology of free-will and moral agency...up to a point. Mormons do accept the Old Testament, and there are plenty of active God punishments in the Bible. Even in the Book of Mormon, God levels cities for unrighteousness. In 3rd Nephi Chapter 10:12-14 we read:
quote:12 And it was the more righteous part of the people who were saved, and it was they who received the prophets and stoned them not; and it was they who had not shed the blood of the saints, who were spared—
13 And they were spared and were not sunk and buried up in the earth; and they were not drowned in the depths of the sea; and they were not burned by fire, neither were they fallen upon and crushed to death; and they were not carried away in the whirlwind; neither were they overpowered by the vapor of smoke and of darkness.
14 And now, whoso readeth, let him understand; he that hath the scriptures, let him search them, and see and behold if all these deaths and destructions by fire, and by smoke, and by tempests, and by whirlwinds, and by the opening of the earth to receive them, and all these things are not unto the fulfilling of the prophecies of many of the holy prophets.
In his book The Miracle of Forgiveness, Kimball talks about Pompeii being destroyed by God because of unrighteousness. Altho that books is recognized as speaking for Kimball and not the church, it is consistent with modern and ancient scriptures. Kimball also was a prophet.
Missionaries can also "dust" their feet at houses, and the inhabitants will feel an active wrath of God.
But Speed is right, there is a much higher focus these days on sin being it's own punishment.
Now lets focus on the temple. Since one purpose of God is to help as many of his children be worthy to become Gods, the Temple is paramount in its' importance to spiritual progression. Certain ordinances that one needs to spiritually progress (ie Sealings & Endowments) can only be done in temples.
There are core commandments you need to follow to be worthy to go to the temple and receive these temple "blessings." Tithing, sexual purity, sustaining the priesthood and the church leadership, et cetera. When we are talking about Mormon commandments, there is a tendency for members to break them into 2 groups. Puppy helped us understand this break down when he said
quote: I think that the phrase "strong encouragement" accurately describes a commandment that there is no punishment for disobeying
The two types of commandments are: 1. Those that, when broken, keep you out of the temple (or some other ordinance) and actively keeps you from progresssing--much like a dam, and 2. those that you follow to have a more rich mortal experience--much like what Speed talked about.
Going on a mission, reading the scriptures everyday, doing service, getting an education, are all examples of commandments you can break and still go to the temple, but there are "natural" consequences in this life and eternal consequences in the life to come.
There is a focus on being temple worthy because, if you are following the core, you will be more receptive to the Holy Spirit and to the councel of the leadership.
Most Mormons go to the temple for the first time when they either go on a Mission or get married. Since there is a commandment for males to go on a mission, those who don't tend not to go to the temple for a while (until marriage).
Being cut off from temple blessings, receiving the social stigma associated with breaking such a big commandment (mission for males), and dealing with the true or untrue suspicions of being sinful, can easily make someone feel they will be cut off from the church. Technically they are fine. Emotionally, not going on a mission can be traumatic, and those feelings are only exasperated by an unsupportive family and ward.
posted
I guess I reject the whole church as a social group thing, with cliques and in crowds and also rans and so on. That's so middle school, guys!
We're told again and again that God is no respecter of persons. He could care less whether you're in the in crowd. He wants us to love each other, to bear each other's burdens, to mourn with those who mourn, and comfort those who stand in need of comfort, to continually serve one another and do good to each other, and to take joy in each other's company. Where in that is there room for cliques, ostracism, or not being in the in crowd?
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If we were perfect there probably wouldn't be any of those things. Unfortunately most people aren't perfect, not even Mormons, Catholics, and Protestants. *bitter*
Posts: 1014 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think religion is about a group of people with a common cause. As long as your cause is close enough and you want it badly enough, you are willing to put up with all the offenses passed around at church.
I think most Christians believe that life is something of a battle, and by grouping together, we all have a better chance of coming out on top. United we stand, divided we fall.
Religion isn't about being part of the "in crowd". For many it is, but they don't get it. By creating "in crowds" they are destroying the purpose of uniting.
Yeah, the guy who got married instead of going on a mission was very young when he did it. And now that he is older, and still active, he is respected more. And considering many of the people who didn't let him in now have problems bigger than his, well, it certianly messes with the stupid little social heirarchy of past years.
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If your involvement with the kingdom is determined by your relationship with the congregation rather than your relationship with the Lord, you are toast whether you are a super-mormon or a slacker. The good news is only the Lord knows for sure, you can't tell by looking at someone.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
HOWEVER-- remember that Christ said that men would know His disciples by the way that they treated one another.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
), there is no "in" crowd.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
