posted
It's my understanding that, like Swiss military service, they are mandatory for all LDS guys of a certain age. Is this the case? Are there some instances where you don't have to do a mission? How much, if any, say does the individual have over where they're sent?
What about women? Are they also required to go on missions? Is there any difference between their assignments and the men's?
I'm Episcopalian (if anything) and from the South (not many Mormons) so I don't really know much about how things work. So these things, while probably common knowledge to most of you, are like greek to me.
There are many cases where he is not allowed to serve a full time mission, including physical disability or health issues.
Young women are allowed to go if they desire, but they are not even asked to go.
The assignments are pretty much the same, but in many parts of the world (like Brazil where I served), the young women tended to get assigned the nicer areas, leaving the seedier places to the rest of us. Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nope. Not mandatory. Strongly encouraged, but not mandatory. And there are circumstances under which you may not be able to serve a mission (although they usually try to give you a position of responsibility in the local missionary work; for instance, they made my husband Ward Mission Leader.) Men go at 19-- usually. Some wait longer, and that's okay if it takes them longer to prepare. They have no say in where they are sent (although they ask you questions about speaking other languages, etc., it may have little or no bearing on where you are sent.)
Women may go on a mission if they feel so inclined at 21 if they are still unmarried and want to go. (And are ready, of course.) They stay 18 months instead of 2 years (like the men do.) They tend to be assigned to more metropolitan areas (as opposed to, say, the Andes in Peru), although this is not always the case.
A pair of older, retired spouses can also serve a "couples mission". It also lasts 18 months, they are asked if they have a preference as to where they go (although most don't care), and their assignments tend to be to build up the church in established wards; older couples do almost no door-to-door tracting. Their assignments are also 18 months. Many older couples go on several missions, if they have the money.
Anything else? Was I unclear on anything?
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are they voluntary the way our football summer workouts were voluntary? Meaning, it's voluntary, but very few people choose not to participate.
What percentage of active parishoners end up going on missions, if anyone keeps such a stat (or can guesstimate).
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know there are stats somewhere... I'll look. I know that a lot more young men than women go on missions.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The percentage varies from ward to ward; in addition, a lot more young men go from each ward in America, Canada, and other more-developed countries than from poorer, less-developed countries (although young men from those areas do go on missions, sometimes just to the next town over, sometimes halfway across the continent or the world.)
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay - Spang -- this is a non-Mormon answering. (and I'm sure the LDS here will jump all over me for this)
I have one very close LDS friend, male, who did NOT go on a mission. (I won't go into his reasons why here). He has told me that he always felt "ostracized" and unaccepted by the people of his ward and some family members for not going.
But whether that is truly how they treated him, or whether that is only his own interpretation of how he thought they view him, I don't know. But "strongly encouraged" can mean so much peer pressure within the church that you feel like an outsider if you don't go, or like you are looked down on.
Then again, this male is nearly 50 years old now. I'm sure many things have changed in the church since he was 19.
posted
How physically demanding are couple missions? I should know this, but for some reason I don't.
Posts: 1903 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It depends on the mission. Some are no more demanding than posting on hatrack all day. Others are more demanding.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The church has a Missionary Fund that members may donate to to assist those who can't raise part or all of the cost of a mission on their own. But most missionaries are asked to finance most or all of their mission (based on an average. The cost of living over the course of the mission plus travel, etc. for all missions is averaged and each missionary is asked to pay the average. So a missionary serving in rural WI where the cost of living is relatively low is paying more than the actual cost for him, while a missionary serving in Tokyo or New York City where living is more expensive is paying less than their actual cost. That way, people who go on more expensive missions aren't stuck with the whole cost, and it's more fair.) Sometimes a richer ward member will pay part or most of a poorer family's child's mission so that they can go. If they have been saving and working but really can't afford it, the Missionary Fund can pay most of their mission expenses. But older couples usually sell a house and buy a smaller one or something and use part of the proceeds or their savings to finance a mission.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
Farmgirl - I suspect this is still the case, but I've only heard anecdotal evidence (but then, what else is there).
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
We just had a talk in RS from a woman who went with her husband to Finland. Their mission was about as demanding as living in the states-- but much colder, and it was an overnight trip to the Temple.
Some couples serve in places with third-world living conditions. Some serve running the family history program in an American stake. It all depends. Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
FG, my husband didn't go on a mission, and he does often get horrible responses, even though they never ask why-- just assume he didn't want to go, when in fact he was not able.
Hopefully, as standards change and perhaps more men do not serve full-time missions, this response will change. But it's really hard on those who didn't get to go.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Farmgirl: I have one very close LDS friend, male, who did NOT go on a mission. (I won't go into his reasons why here). He has told me that he always felt "ostracized" and unaccepted by the people of his ward and some family members for not going.
But whether that is truly how they treated him, or whether that is only his own interpretation of how he thought they view him, I don't know. But "strongly encouraged" can mean so much peer pressure within the church that you feel like an outsider if you don't go, or like you are looked down on.
Then again, this male is nearly 50 years old now. I'm sure many things have changed in the church since he was 19.
Farmgirl
I'd guess that things have changed over the last 50 years. I didn't go on a mission, and I've never felt ostracized. I've known lots of guys who haven't gone, and I don't think they've been ostracized, either.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't doubt that there are indivuals or groups that would ostracize somebody because he didn't serve a mission, but I've never seen it happen myself.
Of course, there are people that will ostracize you for pretty much any reason under the sun.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It also gets awkward when the first question out of somebody's mouth when you move into a ward is, "Where did you serve your mission?" and you say, "I didn't", and they give you a look like you have the black plague or something.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, that can be awkward. But after four years of it, I've gotten good at saying, "Actually, I wasn't able to serve a mission because of health problems." It skips over some of the awkwardness if you can explain why right away instead of leaving them to wonder. Of course, I don't know your husband's situation, so I don't know if it's something he'd care to explain.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
KQ -- for some reason I though KPC was a late-convert to LDS -- like he wasn't Mormon at the age he could go on a mission. How did I get that idea? Were you both LDS when you met?
posted
Jon Boy, we've found that going straight to how we met usually distracts people. "I wasn't able to serve a mission. But I met Anne online and we were married in the LA Temple, so I'm happy with my life" usually gets the conversation on a better track.
FG, KPC was raised in the church. I was LDS when I met him, but had just been baptized the July before, when I was 18.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are several Mormon guys on Hatrack who didn't go. You'd have to ask them, but it doesn't sound like ostracized is the universal treatment.
There are so many converts that of course didn't go that once you hit your mid-twenties, I'd think it's less of an issue.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, hopefully by the time he's 40, people will stop asking him where he served his mission every time we move. Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
I got asked where my husband was four times in a ten-minute period at an LDS fuction for work. I think everyone has something. Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, I have a few Mormon undergarment questions that I think are fairly safe to ask here.
I have lds patients but the past couple years I haven't met any who had the special undergarment on at their clinic visits which made me wonder a few things. Are the undergarments something that, once achieved, can be worn forever? Or is that decided on a yearly basis by the bishop or something? Or do you think people are removing them prior to doctor visits so I won't see them?
Posts: 1014 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Once you start wearing them, you are supposed to always wear them.
When I go to the doctor and I know I'm going to be undressing, though, I usually make provisions. I'm guessing most are taking them off.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I was pregnant, I always switched out my garments for regular underwear before an appointment because I knew the doctor was going to be pushing up my shirt and pulling down my waistband to prod at my tummy and such. Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just wanted to add one little tidbit: My 2nd brother was ordained an elder by 3 upstanding men in our ward (one of whom was my dad ), NONE of whom had served a mission.
Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Theca - I'm guessing people are removing them prior to their visits, hoping to make things less awkward for you or them. I usually wear mine, since normally if I'm going to be removing clothing for my exam it's usually all my clothing. If my doctor has to move clothing around (like when using a stethoscope), he just moves them around too. I think it depends entirely on the person and their doctor, and I imagine it would depends greatly on what you were expecting out of your appointment. I can imagine, like KQ described, it would be much easier to change before an appointment with your OB. My mom does the same thing when she's going in for injections in her hips.
Posts: 5879 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's mandatory -- but it's not onerous what with all the chocolate and cheese and affordable, quality watches.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The missionaries who go from Sri Lanka usually have the church pay for most of their missionary expenses, although they are required to make an effort to save for it. But usually, the cost of one month of missionary service is more than they would earn in a year, so there's no way they can save enough.
Also, sister missionaries do NOT serve in Sri Lanka - it isn't considered safe enough, and I completely agree with that assessment. I've been warned from ever taking public transportation because I'll be sexually assaulted (the local women are frequently sexually assaulted when they take public transportation, so they would know), and missionaries take the cheapest form of transportation available to keep costs down.
We have three sets of missionary couples in my branch and one set of elders. One is a proselyting set, another is for the Church Education System, and the third are humanitarian missionaries, meaning they're here to spend money on things like clean water projects, tsunami relief, and so on.
The older missionaries are allowed to work very much at their own pace to allow for adjustments due to age and health.
About half the missionaries from here serve in the same mission. It makes a lot of sense in terms of language abilities already being present and being able to guide the white missionaries in terms of local customs and such.
Our branch currently has 5 missionaries out - 4 elders and one sister. This, for a branch of 60 active members.
Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've kind of wondered since I had some missionaries visit, why do they get sent out so young? The only reason I can think of is to get them out before they start getting married and having families. But the relative youth of the missionaries that visited me made for an interesting visit. Heck, I'm not much older than they were, or even younger, but they seemed so very... inexperienced, or young.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not knocking them or anything, because I truly enjoyed our talks, but it felt like they were giving answers that they knew, rather than answers they had lived, if that makes any sense.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've experienced missionaries who have both. I've known Missionaries who seemed overwhelmed when I let them know how much I'd read and researched about LDS (and Traditional Christian) history, philosophy, languages, etc. And then, I sat in on them giving lessons and presentations of their testimonies that simply floored, amazed, and humbled me with their power.
Sometimes it's their youth that allows them to humble themselves, and really be open to the Spirit, instead of relying on experience alone.
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was worried at first about trying to talk to kids about real world searchings and moral quandaries and so on. I thought it would feel strange. But from the very first I knew it was good. I noticed their youth and relative inexperience but they were warm and real, and the truth of their message came shining through with no difficulties.
Though they are trained and study the scriptures and the lessons every day, yet the true power to touch hearts lies with the spirit. If the missionaries just speak the truth from their hearts, with the spirit present, then what they say will commend itself to the hearts of the listeners by the power of the spirit. It's amazing.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
