I'm convinced that if Mormons cultivated a greater interest in doing missionary work throughout their lives, there would be no need for a full time missionary force.
Interesting thought. My only argument would be that it's the full-time missionaries' responsibility to teach investigators. If Mormons cultivated a greater interest in doing missionary work, I would think the need for full-time missionaries would grow immensely.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: To me it's a question of good versus real and good wins either way. If a religion is and promotes good, does it matter that it isn't real? And if a religion is real, but evil and does damage to the people who believe it and the world as a whole, again, does it matter that it is real?
The conversation has moved on from this, but… Matter to whom? I would say it absolutely matters to the people in the religion if it’s real regardless of the worldly affects. How many people want to knowingly embrace a falsehood? I think the vast majority of people value truth and would have troublesome cognitive dissonance from reconciling holding on to beliefs that they thought were false.
Now, what are the effects on other people not affiliated with their religion? Sure, your point stands. But what does it really matter what an outsider thinks?
Edited to Add: I'm about to head on a trip for the weekend where I won't have internet, but I'll check this on Sunday or Monday.
For me, it always comes back to this idea: "Every religion is true one way or another. It is true when understood metaphorically. But when it gets stuck in its own metaphors, interpreting them as facts, then you are in trouble." Joseph Campbell
I was making a joke the other with a coworker regarding a recent promotion and I mentioned how I felt like the tortoise who had finally beaten the hare. As a literal fable, I don't believe that one day a tortoise and a hare started a race with a cute ribbon finish line. But its still a comforting story that proved, atleast in that instance, to be symbolically true.
Even people who are religious will pick and choose what they believe to be literally true. The whole blood-into-wine part of Catholicism always makes for very humorous and uncomfortable conversations. And there are always members of certain religions who consider themselves part of the faith even if they're not believers anymore. I see this alot of "cultural religions" like Catholicism or Judaism.
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is a side point that I want to make because a friend of mine on FB who obviously didn't know she had Mormon friends posted something anti-Mormon that used that specific phrase "magic underwear".
I'm not complaining about the musical, because they're meant to be a parody, and it wouldn't be funny if it didn't exaggerate. But for people to post supposedly factual things that refer to magic underwear does seem like a religious slur to me.
Would a Catholic priest's vestments be called a magic cape or something similar? Because that's the same as LDS garments, with the exception that ours are worn under our secular clothes instead of on the outside. Nobody I know thinks they have magical powers to stop bullets or anything, though of course there have been stories in folklore of such things that are just that: folklore.
So I think that's a pretty good indication that something you're reading or watching about Mormons is of the nature of religious slurs, if they talk about magic underwear.
This friend when I pointed out the nature of her post just said it was true so it wasn't a slur. I said it wasn't, actually, and directed her to Mormon.org for our real beliefs. I tried to be calm and respectful and kind about it. I hope I didn't sound whiny or ill-natured.
So, was I right or wrong in making that judgment? What do you guys think?
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course it's a slur. It's a way to trivialize closely held beliefs. Most people that do so who know anything about actual LDS beliefs also seem to enjoy the fact that most LDS members are uncomfortable discussing that aspect of their religion and thus the opportunity to make them (the LDS member or their belief) look stupid is even greater as no one really wants to argue about it, they just want to stop talking about it (putting the antagonist in a position of power). You can identify the rare few who use the term without realizing the meaning of what they're saying by the fact that they will retract their comment when informed it's offensive.
posted
Speaking as a non-religious person (and therefore my opinion is rather just a side note and not actually relevant) I'd say it isn't a "slur" per say...a probably offensive simplification of a Mormon belief staple. To me at least, a slur is more like the n word or the k word which rhymes with mike...something that you call a person, not a belief or practice. I could be wrong, and even so, it's just a question of semantics to me, it seems pretty offensive either way.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Magic underwear" is not a simplification of anything, not even an offensive simplification. It's a slur on an important part of LDS beliefs, I guess if you think slurs can only be for a race but I'm not sure why that would be the case.
posted
I'm sorry Tatiana, but they are "magic underware" and you can't compare them to a Catholic priest's vestments in any way. Elaborate garments are worn to show power (of the church), prestiege, status, rank. Since LDS garments are worn under your secular clothing, they can't do any of that and are only worn with the belief that they'll have magical properties to them.
So no, it's not a religious slur, it's pointing out a fact.
Posts: 19 | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Setting aside the question of whether it's *true* or not, 'slur' and 'accurate' aren't mutually exclusive. A slur is, according to the dictionary, a disparaging remark. The use in this context is clearly meant to disparage, therefore it's a slur. It may be unfortunate to your point of view, Slavim, that it can be accurately called a slur, but calling it a slur is...true:)
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Slavim, they're there to remind us of our covenants, not for anyone else to see but for us to remember. They are symbols of our religious commitments, very much indeed like a Buddhist monk's robe, a Catholic priest's vestments, or perhaps an Orthodox Jewish man's yarmulke.
I repeat that nobody believes they stop bullets or freight trains or anything of the sort, outside of folklore. It's not really correct to call religion magic, though they both involve powers we don't understand. If you would refer to Catholic communion hosts as "magic cookies" then would that be a religious slur, to you?
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Since LDS garments are worn under your secular clothing, they can't do any of that and are only worn with the belief that they'll have magical properties to them.
posted
I keep using Catholics as an example because I was raised Catholic so I know a little bit about their practices.
I'm glad to see that 3 out 4 people who've responded so far do agree that it's an offensive usage. I don't want to be too sensitive or whiney, but I want to correct ignorance about my religion when I see it, and as a matter of politeness I also want to let people know that some members of their audience (fb friends, coworkers, etc.) do happen to be Latter-day Saints.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: "Magic underwear" is not a simplification of anything, not even an offensive simplification.
This is where I got that idea (not saying it is true, as I would have no way of knowing or not).
quote:Originally posted by wiki The undergarments are viewed as a symbolic reminder of the covenants made in temple ceremonies, and are viewed as either a symbolic or literal source of protection from the evils of the world.
posted
That's not unreasonable based on that quote I guess, but I'll say that it would be very charitable to call that comment a simplification even ignoring the insult implied in it. Even if a LDS member believes that the garment will literally protect them against the evils (spiritual or physical) it would not be special properties of the garment itself but God acting to protect His covenant keeping child providing the protection. And I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who was LDS who disagreed with the idea that it was God and not the fabric or properties of the fabric that protected them. That's why I said it wasn't a simplification.
posted
I'm a very argumentative, stubborn person, who believes in the power of words, and tries to use them with specificity.
But...I'm trying not to be so argumentative...I mean, this issue got brought up as the question, is the phrase "magic underwear" offense or not, basically...and on that, we agree. So arguing about if it is an simplification or not seems irrelevant, so I'm going to not argue it.
It's almost painful not to, but I'm trying to not get bogged down in the tiny details which do not effect the real topic and keep my eye on the big picture...and have less arguments in general.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
I'm convinced that if Mormons cultivated a greater interest in doing missionary work throughout their lives, there would be no need for a full time missionary force.
Interesting thought. My only argument would be that it's the full-time missionaries' responsibility to teach investigators. If Mormons cultivated a greater interest in doing missionary work, I would think the need for full-time missionaries would grow immensely.
Missionaries are also instructed to bring a member to as many meetings as they can with investigators. While missionaries are trained to help teach investigators, there's no special training that the individual member couldn't also get if they simply made a point of doing so. I think that idea runs very much abreast of the idea that we don't have a professional clergy. Any member who puts enough time in study will with the assistance of God gain all the knowledge they need to be a powerful tool for converting others.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am genuinely mystified how people who wouldn't dream of making disparaging remarks about other religions and other groups of people are downright proud of themselves for making them about Mormons.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
1) They consider Mormons to be worse than those other groups, for some reason. 2) They would dream of making disparaging remarks about other religions or groups, but either they haven't done so in your presence or you haven't noticed, not being a member of those religions or groups.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Well, there are two obvious possibilities:
1) They consider Mormons to be worse than those other groups, for some reason. 2) They would dream of making disparaging remarks about other religions or groups, but either they haven't done so in your presence or you haven't noticed, not being a member of those religions or groups.
There's also the possibility that there are no obvious significant repercussions for doing so.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
*nod* And if we're going for other less obvious alternatives, there's also "thinks their disparaging comments have a better chance of effecting change in Mormon behavior than in some of those other groups;" or "thinks Mormons are funnier than other groups, and derives more amusement from mocking them for superficial things than criticizing religions with serious underlying problems for those problems." And so on. Really, IMO, you're spoiled for possible choices.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Note to self: Mockery of non-Mormon groups has not been obvious enough. Now obligated to mock them more out of fairness. End note.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
I'm convinced that if Mormons cultivated a greater interest in doing missionary work throughout their lives, there would be no need for a full time missionary force.
Interesting thought. My only argument would be that it's the full-time missionaries' responsibility to teach investigators. If Mormons cultivated a greater interest in doing missionary work, I would think the need for full-time missionaries would grow immensely.
Missionaries are also instructed to bring a member to as many meetings as they can with investigators. While missionaries are trained to help teach investigators, there's no special training that the individual member couldn't also get if they simply made a point of doing so. I think that idea runs very much abreast of the idea that we don't have a professional clergy. Any member who puts enough time in study will with the assistance of God gain all the knowledge they need to be a powerful tool for converting others.
This is an interesting idea. I agree that with the kind of shift your talking about, the degree of difference in member missionary work, there would be a vast change in the way the Church organized the missionary efforts. However I disagree with the extent of change your talking about. A few points:
Keys would be the first one. To the best of my knowledge the Mission President can authorize any Melchizedek Priesthood holder to perform the baptismal interview and then any appropriate Priesthood holder to baptize a convert, but the keys remain with those called. Admittedly the 'normal' missionaries hold no keys but there's no question the Mission President will not be going anywhere (especially when you remember their added responsibility as leaders of districts). The missionaries are called as special witnesses, the idea being they are given power to testify to the world in a powerful and unique way. Members could be called as such without being sent on full-time missions but to my mind a great deal of the power of the calling comes from a dedicated life. Not to mention the short but rigorous instruction on what exactly a convert must learn and do to join the Church. Training every member, or even several members in every ward in such a way I think would be a monumental task (the difference between all being gathered to one central school to be taught versus trying to ensure quality of teaching in wards across the world, two weeks of all-day dedication versus scheduling it in when possible, etc...)
Another point would be those areas that have little or no Church infrastructure to begin with. In such a place there is simply no substitution for missionaries as the amount of exposure of 'normal' members would be too slight and full-time mission work would be of great use. Perhaps a significant shift of missionaries from more concentrated areas to the outskirts of the Church would occur as a result, which would be most beneficial.
Finally, while I wouldn't exactly call the mission a rite of passage there's no question it plays an important role both culturally and spiritually. I never liked the idea that a person went on a mission for themselves rather than those they served but there's no question that a mission is a very important aspect of many return missionaries life. An opportunity to dedicate your time to Christ is a way not normally available otherwise, exposure to other cultures. There are numerous ways in which missions help the Church outside of leading to converts. I think removing the institution to all but a few Mission Presidents would be a blow.
Oh no, wait - right - because Mormons are horrible people who penalize anyone who doesn't follow an exact, lock-step plan. I forgot! Right! All the evidence to contrary merely proves the rule of how much Mormons are actually horrible people and the worst of them represent the whole. Right.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whose words do you think you're filling in, Katie? Because I think you're having an argument with a boggin.
Unless of course you believe that Rabbit -- a Mormon herself -- is saying that Mormons are horrible people.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
katharina: Things are certainly much better in this regard, but wouldn't you say that for men who do not serve missions there is a significant disapproval factor when it comes to dating and other social interactions?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Or unofficially.
Oh no, wait - right - because Mormons are horrible people who penalize anyone who doesn't follow an exact, lock-step plan. I forgot! Right! All the evidence to contrary merely proves the rule of how much Mormons are actually horrible people and the worst of them represent the whole. Right.
Its ridiculous to claim that there isn't enormous social pressure for LDS young men to serve missions or to deny that there is social cost for choosing not to serve. That doesn't make Mormons horrible people who punish anyone who doesn't follow exact rules. Every subculture in the world has certain expectations of its members and there is always some social cost for failing to live up to those expectations.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:If it were a rite of passage, it would not be possible to become a full-fledged adult in the community without going on a mission.
That isn't true. There are lots of rites of passage that are not completely observed. For instance, there was a time when a "Sweet Sixteen" party was extremely expected for young women, but not everyone had one, and not everyone was required to have one. It was still a classic example of a rite of passage. There are numerous other examples.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Unless of course you believe that Rabbit -- a Mormon herself -- is saying that Mormons are horrible people.
Kat's already indicated she thinks of me as an "outsider" among Mormons. No idea how she came to this conclusion or why she feels qualified to make that judgement. I suspect she doesn't appreciate the irony of excluding me in the same breath where she condemns me for implying Mormons exclude people who don't march in lock step.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Because you don't have to go on one to be considered a full-fledged adult in the community.
At least not officially.
If it were a rite of passage, it would not be possible to become a full-fledged adult in the community without going on a mission.
I think you are using a far narrower definition of the term than is in common usage today.
Going away to college is often referred to as a rite of passage. High school graduation is called a rite of passage. Basic training is called a rite of passage.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Kat's already indicated she thinks of me as an "outsider" among Mormons. No idea how she came to this conclusion or why she feels qualified to make that judgement. I suspect she doesn't appreciate the irony of excluding me in the same breath where she condemns me for implying Mormons exclude people who don't march in lock step.
quote:If it were a rite of passage, it would not be possible to become a full-fledged adult in the community without going on a mission.
That isn't true. There are lots of rites of passage that are not completely observed. For instance, there was a time when a "Sweet Sixteen" party was extremely expected for young women, but not everyone had one, and not everyone was required to have one. It was still a classic example of a rite of passage. There are numerous other examples.
I personally do think it's something of a rite of passage (although not an official one). Not everybody serves a mission, and they are not outcast by any means. But they don't have that cache of mission stories to share, and there is a "mission moments" subgenre they can't participate in. It's like having done a stint in the military or having gone to the same school--that instant bond of familiarity among the veterans. I do think a mission is hard enough that you feel like you've earned the right to tell a few stories afterward. As the years pass, however, other life experiences supersede the mission and the line between those who served a mission and those who didn't fades quite a bit.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
I'm convinced that if Mormons cultivated a greater interest in doing missionary work throughout their lives, there would be no need for a full time missionary force.
Interesting thought. My only argument would be that it's the full-time missionaries' responsibility to teach investigators. If Mormons cultivated a greater interest in doing missionary work, I would think the need for full-time missionaries would grow immensely.
Missionaries are also instructed to bring a member to as many meetings as they can with investigators. While missionaries are trained to help teach investigators, there's no special training that the individual member couldn't also get if they simply made a point of doing so. I think that idea runs very much abreast of the idea that we don't have a professional clergy. Any member who puts enough time in study will with the assistance of God gain all the knowledge they need to be a powerful tool for converting others.
This is an interesting idea. I agree that with the kind of shift your talking about, the degree of difference in member missionary work, there would be a vast change in the way the Church organized the missionary efforts. However I disagree with the extent of change your talking about. A few points:
Keys would be the first one. To the best of my knowledge the Mission President can authorize any Melchizedek Priesthood holder to perform the baptismal interview and then any appropriate Priesthood holder to baptize a convert, but the keys remain with those called. Admittedly the 'normal' missionaries hold no keys but there's no question the Mission President will not be going anywhere (especially when you remember their added responsibility as leaders of districts). The missionaries are called as special witnesses, the idea being they are given power to testify to the world in a powerful and unique way. Members could be called as such without being sent on full-time missions but to my mind a great deal of the power of the calling comes from a dedicated life. Not to mention the short but rigorous instruction on what exactly a convert must learn and do to join the Church. Training every member, or even several members in every ward in such a way I think would be a monumental task (the difference between all being gathered to one central school to be taught versus trying to ensure quality of teaching in wards across the world, two weeks of all-day dedication versus scheduling it in when possible, etc...)
Another point would be those areas that have little or no Church infrastructure to begin with. In such a place there is simply no substitution for missionaries as the amount of exposure of 'normal' members would be too slight and full-time mission work would be of great use. Perhaps a significant shift of missionaries from more concentrated areas to the outskirts of the Church would occur as a result, which would be most beneficial.
Finally, while I wouldn't exactly call the mission a rite of passage there's no question it plays an important role both culturally and spiritually. I never liked the idea that a person went on a mission for themselves rather than those they served but there's no question that a mission is a very important aspect of many return missionaries life. An opportunity to dedicate your time to Christ is a way not normally available otherwise, exposure to other cultures. There are numerous ways in which missions help the Church outside of leading to converts. I think removing the institution to all but a few Mission Presidents would be a blow.
Hobbes
There is definitely the possibility of shifting the responsibilities of full-time missionaries to the members, I guess. As it stands, I'm pretty sure the full-time missionaries have to be the ones who teach investigators prior to baptism. They can definitely teach in company with local members. But they are in charge of the teaching. That's why I would expect more missionaries, not fewer, if the members really got their butts in gear.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I personally do think it's something of a rite of passage (although not an official one). Not everybody serves a mission, and they are not outcast by any means. But they don't have that cache of mission stories to share, and there is a "mission moments" subgenre they can't participate in. It's like having done a stint in the military or having gone to the same school--that instant bond of familiarity among the veterans. I do think a mission is hard enough that you feel like you've earned the right to tell a few stories afterward. As the years pass, however, other life experiences supersede the mission and the line between those who served a mission and those who didn't fades quite a bit.
Yep-- my thoughts exactly.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I personally do think it's something of a rite of passage (although not an official one). Not everybody serves a mission, and they are not outcast by any means.
I think that sugar coats things a bit. Outcast is too strong of a word, but at least In Utah and other areas in the western US where the church is strong, there is enormous social pressure for young men to go on missions and a definite social penalty for not going. If you don't go, you will be continually questioned about why not. Many will assume you are not worthy to serve. A lot of girls won't date you. In fact when I was a young woman, "returned missionary" was typically near the top of the list of items one should seek in a mate. I think that's been toned down over the years but it certainly hasn't disappeared.
I have a couple friends who weren't able to serve missions for health reasons who had very difficult struggles socially for a couple of years. I had another friend who chose not to go and eventually stopped attending church for a couple of years because he got tired of being harassed about it. The stigma of having not served a mission decreases as you get a bit older and particularly after you marry. I think it also decreases the further you get from Utah and the more recently you and/or your family have joined the church. But it definitely exists and it really isn't honest to say its just about not having any missionary stories to tell.
[ June 27, 2011, 12:31 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Admittedly the 'normal' missionaries hold no keys but there's no question the Mission President will not be going anywhere (especially when you remember their added responsibility as leaders of districts).
It will be interesting to see, but I would not be at all surprised if Mission Presidents disappeared or had substantially changed rolls in most areas of the church in a few decades. As the church grows, the areas with districts rather than stakes will disappear. I can easily see Missionary activities being integrated into stakes. There have been some really major changes of the past 50 years and I expect there will be even greater changes in the next 50.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I personally do think it's something of a rite of passage (although not an official one). Not everybody serves a mission, and they are not outcast by any means.
I think that sugar coats things a bit. Outcast is too strong of a word, but at least In Utah and other areas in the western US where the church is strong, there is enormous social pressure for young men to go on missions and a definite social penalty for not going. If you don't go, you will be continually questioned about why not. Many will assume you are not worthy to serve. A lot of girls won't date you. In fact when I was a young woman, "returned missionary" was typically near the top of the list of items one should seek in a mate. I think that's been toned down over the years but it certainly hasn't disappeared.
I have a couple friends who weren't able to serve missions for health reasons who had very difficult struggles socially for a couple of years. I had another friend who chose not to go and eventually stopped attending church for a couple of years because he got tired of being harassed about it. The stigma of having not served a mission decreases as you get a bit older and particularly after you marry. I think it also decreases the further you get from Utah and the more recently you and/or your family have joined the church. But it definitely exists and it really isn't honest to say its just about not having any missionary stories to tell.
I did actually mean outcast in the official sense, as in there is no censure from the Church or any other action taken against them. While a mission is strongly encouraged for every young man barring health concerns or serious problems in his past, it's also left to the young man to ultimately decide if he wants to go.
I did sugar coat it by talking about it purely in terms of a rite of passage. In fact, there's a whole spectrum of reactions from family, friends, and acquaintances when a young man for whatever reason decides not to go. There's plenty of disappointment and everybody deals with it differently. Some young women might be silly enough still to think that's all they want in a potential husband, even though having served a mission is no guarantee that a young man is going to be any good. I'm fairly certain this isn't just a problem with Utah Mormon culture. A son of a staunch military family who chooses not to join up might face similar reactions, as might a son of a true-crimson Harvard family who decides to go to Yale--and that list goes on and on.
What I've personally observed in those who didn't go on a mission and eventually drifted away, is that frequently the factors that led them not to serve a mission are also pushing them away from the Church. That is, it's rarely the stigma of not having served alone. We've had several young men decide against a mission in the past few years, and I have been privy to a fair amount of opinions about each case, and I have observed that their families and congregation in general have remained very supportive and loving, quite the opposite of pushing them away. If they have drifted away anyway, it has been through their own choices.
In any case, treating a young man who hasn't gone on a mission with anything less than the love, support, and respect he deserves regardless is poor, harmful behavior hardly becoming of a member of the Church. I'm always sorry to hear about it happening.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:What I've personally observed in those who didn't go on a mission and eventually drifted away, is that frequently the factors that led them not to serve a mission are also pushing them away from the Church. That is, it's rarely the stigma of not having served alone.
This fits with my experience of having failed to go on a mission (after getting a call, even), and then leaving the church.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:What I've personally observed in those who didn't go on a mission and eventually drifted away, is that frequently the factors that led them not to serve a mission are also pushing them away from the Church. That is, it's rarely the stigma of not having served alone.
This fits with my experience of having failed to go on a mission (after getting a call, even), and then leaving the church.
Didn't like the location?
I'm honestly not trying to marginalize what must have been a very difficult decision.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:We've had several young men decide against a mission in the past few years, and I have been privy to a fair amount of opinions about each case, and I have observed that their families and congregation in general have remained very supportive and loving, quite the opposite of pushing them away. If they have drifted away anyway, it has been through their own choices.
This matches what I have seen.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:What I've personally observed in those who didn't go on a mission and eventually drifted away, is that frequently the factors that led them not to serve a mission are also pushing them away from the Church. That is, it's rarely the stigma of not having served alone.
This fits with my experience of having failed to go on a mission (after getting a call, even), and then leaving the church.
Didn't like the location?
If I regret anything about the decision, actually, it's avoiding the destination. It was Vancouver, B.C. Great place, from what I hear.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:We've had several young men decide against a mission in the past few years, and I have been privy to a fair amount of opinions about each case, and I have observed that their families and congregation in general have remained very supportive and loving, quite the opposite of pushing them away. If they have drifted away anyway, it has been through their own choices.
I don't know much about this part of life in this culture. I'm glad to hear that family and congregation are supportive and loving. That's consistent with what I would hope from families and friends in general, as well as in what I know of LDS communities.
I wonder more about circumstances in which the expectation (in a very general sense) isn't support but rather is based on discrimination: where potential partners must choose amongst a field of possibilities for a mate, and where potential employers must choose amongst a field of applicants for filling just one position. I guess that is where I would see the most social pressure come to bear: not that people would necessarily say anything, but that a non-missionary might find it seems that they are just that much less likely to be the one picked out of the crowd.
I'm not thinking so much of being given the lack of a mission as a specified reason for rejection, but rather experiencing a pattern of being less likely to be chosen than one would expect. That maybe it means you don't stand out as much, you don't have the wow factor (?), and so you get passed over again and again when it comes to the circumstances of forced choices. Maybe even that having been on the mission means it is easier to make connections, too?
How much, if at all, does that come into play?
Posts: 831 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not thinking so much of being given the lack of a mission as a specified reason for rejection, but rather experiencing a pattern of being less likely to be chosen than one would expect. That maybe it means you don't stand out as much, you don't have the wow factor (?), and so you get passed over again and again when it comes to the circumstances of forced choices. Maybe even that having been on the mission means it is easier to make connections, too?
How much, if at all, does that come into play?
It certainly does, but outside of the aforementioned dating scene I don't think it comes into play much. A mission is expected of every healthy (physically and mentally) male of age (in general, 19-25) if someone doesn't serve that is in that category there is a reason. It was mentioned these same reasons can lead to leaving the Church. When it doesn't it they still normally have an impact on Church attendance, testimony (lack of, or shaky faith in the Gospel as taught by the LDS Church is itself often the problem itself) and behavior. These things do make a guy less appealing to a typical LDS woman whatever their 'RM status'. As a result many women use RM status as a litmus test for men in the Church. Which I personally think is perfectly reasonable. Though there are some that would never date or marry a non-RM, I'm not convinced it's that common, rather it's just one of many things that you look at in the more-complex-than-many-really-appreciate dating world. I do the same thing in different ways (do they attend Church regularly? Do they stick around for and actually go to the meetings following Sacrament?), as I get to know someone those kind of litmus tests fade away as actual reality comes into focus. Same for most women, at least most I've met (which is a large enough sample to make me think it's true generally).
The only other way someone is likely to be discriminated against in the way your describing is in Church responsibilities. The Bishop of the congregation assigns basically every potential 'calling' or ecclesiastical job in his congregation (it's a little more complex than that, but close enough). Though he does this through inspiration from God (as we members believe ) there's still logic, reason and even personal bias involved. If a young man has not served a mission despite the opportunity he may not be chosen for larger responsibilities.
Having sat in on many discussions about this I find that this does happen for a period of time. Basically when the window for serving a mission is still open the focus for that individual is to help them serve a mission should they choose to (and thus callings to increase their activity in the Church, deepen their understanding of the Gospel, etc...) which normally means more leadership oriented callings are shied away from (though hardly taboo). After that time passes, as they move into their late 20s those thoughts are gone and really the only thing I've ever heard a Bishop consider out loud (and I think it's true internally as well though never having been a Bishop I wouldn't know) is the person themselves, not their status as a RM. Not to say that it can't happen but I'm not aware of it ever happening to any extent, I don't think it's very common.
ETA: When it comes to networking I'm sure it can help people. I know some who did get jobs or other sundry items as a result of those they met on their mission. Sadly this never helped me, nor any close friends, only acquaintances. That said if you just network (whatever that means) for two years instead of a mission I'm sure you're more likely to come out ahead on that score.
posted
As an addendum, I feel the need to add that I'm sure that people have done rotten things and made insulting assumptions about those who didn't serve. Some of these people were probably in positions that would hurt a young man who didn't serve. Ecclesiastical leaders, a girl he desired, or just a gossipy parent of a friend. I don't want to belittle those who went through such an experience and were hurt by the reaction of others. It's just that the vast majority of responses I've seen to this situation have been positive and loving rather than judgmental.
quote:Though there are some that would never date or marry a non-RM, I'm not convinced it's that common
The idea that a gal should only consider RMs as potential husbands is pretty common. As to how much that idea would be adhered to if the opportunity presented itself is suspect, but I think the idea itself makes it less likely to date them in the first place, which keeps their resolution on that point from being tested as much as it would otherwise.
quote:If a young man has not served a mission despite the opportunity he may not be chosen for larger responsibilities.
I'd say that he would likely not be.
Once you get past your 20s, though, its no longer an issue. In the program I have my calling in, I work pretty closely with two other guys in their 30s, and have been doing so for months. The topic came up the other day, and I just barely discovered that one of them served a mission when he was younger. I don't know if the other one did or not. It simply doesn't matter at this point.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The idea that a gal should only consider RMs as potential husbands is pretty common. As to how much that idea would be adhered to if the opportunity presented itself is suspect, but I think the idea itself makes it less likely to date them in the first place, which keeps their resolution on that point from being tested as much as it would otherwise.
I'll defer to you on this one. I can only speak from the perspective of a young, single adult (rather someone who has any experience in the youth programs) in which I would say that I don't find it overly common as a prejudice that actually keeps anyone from dating and marrying a non-RM [as a hard rule]. Though your final point I'd say is valid, just as I'm less likely to date and thus find out more about a woman who chooses to leave Church after attending Sacrament meeting.
quote:I'd say that he would likely not be
I don't know that this is necessarily the case. Though in my experience very few are, less commonly is it due to their lack of mission experience as opposed to the fact they just wouldn't be the right person for the task. I'm not an expert but having to find people for callings and calling for people in several different venues I rarely saw someone who was the right age to go on a mission (male), didn't, and had both the faith and the personal skills necessary to have any of these responsibilities. But that may be a question of differing definitions of 'leadership callings' and such. I certainly agree with you that after a certain age (which I'd say is 27 or 28 when not married, I don't really have the experience to comment on the alternative) it really doesn't matter much to anyone. At least not when it comes to assigning callings.
quote:I work pretty closely with two other guys in their 30s, and have been doing so for months. The topic came up the other day, and I just barely discovered that one of them served a mission when he was younger. I don't know if the other one did or not. It simply doesn't matter at this point.
I just had that exact conversation with my ward clerk a few months ago (he had not served). Amusingly this happened right after he told me he was engaged. Go figure.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
