posted
Bob: Sorry it's taken so long to give you a response, the 6 hour time difference can be a pain. Like I said, I was talking in generalities, the specifics are often different. However, if a young man serves faithfully and diligently on a mission, he will have experiences that will cause him to look beyond himself: He will be learning to love people from walks of life that he may never have had anything to do with if he had not served a mission. He will give everything he has for that person, pray for them, fast for them, dig deep into his and their souls to help bring them to understanding of what he knows to be true, and to overcome things that could hold them back. All of this is motivated solely by love of the indiviual or family, not because he wants a reward of any kind. It's totally unselfish. Some missionaries come to this attitude over a period of time, others pick it up very quickly. It's this unselfish love,and the responsibility of seeing people trust you enough to change their lives, often drastically, and sometimes in ways that affects them negatively, because of what you have taught them, that is the real maturer. When a missionary comes home you can see this in them, there's a sense of self awareness, almost of 'gravitas', that is striking in many of them. Having said that though, most RMs slip back into "normal" life with ease, and act like most other 22 year olds. The difference is though, that they have seen and done things that no one who hasn't served a mission has, and that is always there in them. As someone else said earlier, there is no special status, official or unofficial, in terms of what that might 'entitle' an RM to. Nobody sane in this church seeks a position. In an earlier post on this thread I mentioned my son-in-law, not an RM. Great guy, strong in the church, couldn't ask for better. The whole RM thing in relation to him is irrelevant to me, although I know he has strong regrets that he didn't go. But as someone else said, after a few years of being home, it doesn't really matter. In relation to what you said about self indulgence of 19 year olds not necessarily being an accurate picture: I can just compare my oldest son who served a mission, and in whom there was a noticeable difference in manner, attitude, goals, confidence level, ability to deal with challenges, etc, and my youngest son who is now 22, and who hasn't served, and although a lovely young man in so many ways, has not had the types of experiences that his brother had, and so is much more self focussed than his brother was at his age. His mother is sad that he chose not to serve, because she saw what it did for his brother. That's not to say that there is any feeling in our family of, 'Oh you've let us down by not going on a mission'. As an interesting aside, he thought he would get a negative reaction at church because he obviously had not gone on a mission, but no such thing has happened. We don't live in Utah, so I can't comment on whether there would have been any negative pressure there, but none here, even though the expectation is that every worthy young man should go on a mission. Posts: 867 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Having said all that, and on further reflection, I'm not sure how much impact that perceived maturity has on making the RM 'better' at marriage. My wife and I got married one month after I got home (we were engaged before I left), but I was still pretty immature in terms of being ready to be a father (our first child was born 11 months after we got married). I'd had the experiences, but don't know if that translated into making me more ready for marriage and its associated responsibilities and challenges or not. The maturation definitely happens, but it's whether that has an impact on marriage suitability or success, I dunno... Posts: 867 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In fact, serving a mission *can* make a person ideallic and narrowminded in ways that are NOT conducive to marriage and parenthood. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My husband gets really irritated when people ask "Where did you serve your mission?" He didn't serve a regular mission; he was ward mission leader, but was unable to serve a full-time mission. His answer: "Richardson." Since we live in Richardson, that usually shuts them up. Sometimes, though, he gets a response along the lines of "My brother/friend/brother's friend/brother's friend's aunt's friend's son didn't serve a mission. There's no shame in that, he didn't because..." It's like they're implying that he should be feeling shame, which they are now going to alleviate. They also expect an explaination in response as to exactly why my husband didn't serve a mission. Since it's none of their business, he'd rather not go into it, and they sometimes get huffy. It really bugs me.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh brother. I have seen that very conversation happen many times with friends of mine and other well-meaning (sort of) people that are clueless. I can understnad why guys feel a slighted at times.
I would encourage my brothers and friends to serve a mission if they are able to because of all the points that Cashew mentioned. But, it's just something you choose to do, or you choose not to do. My parents have always felt that way too and it's been great for my five brothers because the decision has been theirs and theirs alone.
Posts: 6415 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not like choosing whether or not to go to BYU or spend a semester in France. All young men who are able have been instructed to serve. Like most commandments, a sociological case can be made for it, but that's not the real reason to go. It's still a personal decision.
posted
Yes, the reasons for going are intensely personal, but also very public. The ultimate decision has to be between the one going and God, and until that level of decision is made the missionary won't be much use to anyone, including himself. Ideally that decion is made before he/she goes, but for many it takes place in the first few months of their actual mission. Missionaries who never come to that are, I hate to say, wasting their time and everybody else's. Their reasons for going are the public ones: parental/girlfriend expectations, all the other guys in their ward went, etc. There's nothing wrong with those reasons contributing to the decision to go, as long as the REAL reason they're there is the personal one between God and the missionary. If a missionary never makes the decision on that level he will come home unchanged in the really profound ways that make a mission such a valuable experience.
Posts: 867 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
exactly. And if I'm met with someone who hasn't been keeping one commandment or another, I don't ask "So, how has the law of chastity been going? Ohh....hm, you're having issues with that? Well, my brother's cousin's roommates former girlfriend had trouble with that too, and there's no shame in it! Really!"
(This isn't snarky, I just think that the "You didn't serve a mission" stigma is not an acceptable way to treat someone.)
edit to add the winky smiley face so you'd really know I'm being silly.
posted
I know I tried to go on a mission. I tried to send my papers in three times. once when i just turned 19 and was told i needed to save about 2000 dollars first. to pay for the things i was takeing with me. like clothes and such. i was able to save that much within three years. but a few days before i was going to hand in the paper work to the bishop. my aunt had to file for bankruptcy thatnks to one of my cusin and her boyfriend. that should have been paying my aunt rent. but they desided not to, and then proceeded to take aadvantage of my aunt. so long story short she need more than 2000 dollars so we wouldn;t get kicked out of our house. with out a second thought i closed my saveings acount and gave her the money. so i was told i need to same another 2000 dollars before i go. so I started saving again, and two months before my 26th birthday our bishop got my paper work back saying that i was going to be denied for medical reasons. then the bisop told me that i could reaply if i lost 30 to 40 pounds cause the church was worried that i wouildn't be able to talk the 8 to 10 hours a day that missionaries do. I honestly felt i didn't need to lose the weight. so i told the bishop that i answered the call, but wasnt choosen. you know that quote " Many are called few are choosen." i was also told that the years i spent as a stake missionary and word misionary could count as a mission. which i kinda half belived. but ohwell Im teaching primery now and really enjoy it.
i don't know what the point of this post was but its there make of it as you will. Posts: 513 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chris it's a shame that the money became such an issue. In my experience money should be the last issue that should prevent someone from serving a mission. I went as a foreign student at BYU Hawaii (i.e. no money at all except for enough to buy a suit, some shirts and shoes), and a good lady from California who I had never met sponsored me for my whole mission. I don't think you should feel bad because you never went, the heart and desire was sure there, and it was a good thing you did, helping out your aunt.
Posts: 867 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, my husband sent in his papers 3 times. He had his money saved, he went through the Temple, he was ready to go, he was hyped. Every time he was turned down, he was horribly depressed. I don't think it's for anyone to judge whether someone else has served a mission or not. There were girls at Ricks who would strike up a conversation with him, ask if he was an RM, then ask when he was going, and when he said that he had tried 3 times and been instructed that he wouldn't be going at this time, they recommended he focus on his education now, the girls would get kind of a blank look and make excuses, then walk away. The attitude "every worthy man should serve a full-time mission" creates a lot of hurt. The correct phrase should be "every worthy man should do all he can to prepare himself to serve a full-time mission, and if he is unable to, should find another way to serve".
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
I do understand what you mean though Scott. I think that it should be treated as a commandment and taught as such. I just wish that that it wasn't such a public choice. It's really hurtful in some cases, like in the case above.
Posts: 6415 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most of the commandments are fairly private. If you're not keeping the law of chastity, reading your scriptures, keeping the word of wisdom, or paying tithing, the only way people know for sure is if you tell them. The only other one that's this public is the going-to-church commandment, I think.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, there is sustaining church leadership; if you're talking against the prophet, people know. Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I regret very deeply not going on a mission. I wanted to very much; I just let other priorities get in the way of my service, for which I am truly sorry. There were other reasons, but they are of a personal nature which I don't usually discuss publicly.
My regret is two-fold--one, I really wanted to serve the Lord. I saved up for it, and was looking forward to it, and not being able to go was a disappointment. The second is for many of the reasons that have been discussed on this board; I feel that I have "missed out" on an experience that most of my peers have shared. I didn't get to have the intense spiritual growth and maturation that is associated with a mission.
Fortunately, most of the members of my ward don't treat me differently because of my non-RM status. They seem to understand that if I continue to be a nice guy, try to keep the commandments and fulfill my responsibilities to the best of my ability, then they aren't going to worry about what I did or did not do in my past. As far as I know, it hasn't affected my ability to date whomever I want to ask (though I'm pretty shy in the whole date-asking department, so I may find it has an effect if I actually asked people. )
Still . . . I wish the more forgiving atmosphere in my ward applied to the Church at large. There just seems to be too much of a cultural "stigma" associated with not serving a mission. Well, maybe "stigma" is too strong of a word. It's more like what afr said:
quote: If you have served a mission, then you have a normal past.
Those who haven't are somehow abnormal, and therefore it takes a little more work to get to know, so why bother?
I guess it ties in to one of the biggest concerns the church leaders have: culturally, many members of the church have become very exclusive. Not only are "non-Mormons" excluded, but those who haven't led the "ideal" life are also left out in the cold. It seems that since a member has had specific experiences in his/her life that have led to happiness/spiritual growth, then all members must have that experience or they can't possibly be happy/spirtually strong. Of course, I disagree with this idea. I figure that if God didn't let at least a few repentant sinners in, the Celestial Kingdom would be an awfully lonely and boring place. Again, fortunately, most of the members I know don't practice the "doctrine of exclusion" (especially the wonderful ones in Hatrack, ) but still I think it is one of the biggest things that we need to work on as a Church.
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
It really bugs me.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Oh brother. I have seen that very conversation happen many times with friends of mine and other well-meaning (sort of) people that are clueless. I can understnad why guys feel a slighted at times.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
