A few days ago, while perusing FB, I noticed a John Dehlin post, which I always enjoy reading, and in the comments some hardline TBM was making the claim that,

****"All worthy LDS males of the required age are COMMANDED to serve a 2 year mission for the church"****

And sited several quotes from the GA's.

He then went on to state he would never allow any of his daughters to date or associate with a boy (falling onto the above category) that hadn't honorably served a mission, or should be serving a mission but wasn't.
Explaning that it was simply a telling character assessment of who this young man was, and how important the gospel was to him.
Only then would he consider allowing his daughter(s) to become involved with the young man.

I havent been to church in a few years or intently listened to a general conference, but is this truly a commandment for young LDS males?
I always thought the church "encouraged" or "requested" boys to serve missions, but never commanded it.
Is it a sin now to continue ones education, go to college and skip the mission?
Has the church become so hardlined that it is now taking away young men's free agency?

WTF is going on??

This was the constant mantra that I got in the 1980's and 1990's was this little gem from Spencer Kimball that every worthy young man should fill a mission. Now that was either one of his weird sexual innuendos, or he really made a requirement to go preach Mormonism. See the quote below:

"I was asked a few years ago, “Should every young man who is a member of the Church fill a mission?” And I responded with the answer the Lord has given: “Yes, every worthy young man should fill a mission.” The Lord expects it of him. And if he is not now worthy to fill a mission, then he should start at once to qualify himself. The Lord has instructed, “Send forth the elders of my church unto the nations which are afar off; unto the islands of the sea; send forth unto foreign lands; call upon all nations, first upon the Gentiles, and them upon the Jews.” (D&C 133:8)."

https://www.lds.org/new-era/1981/05/president-kimball-speaks-out-on-being-a-missionary?lang=eng

The church always has grey areas on this. For example, the Word of Wisdom started out as just "advice", but later on became a commandment.

Going on a mission isn't a commandment, in the sense that you can still go to the Celestial Kingdom if you don't serve a mission. However, I felt under enormous pressure to go on a mission. Infant, in my entire life, it was the most pressure I've ever felt to do anything. Absolutely horrible experience. It's fine for the kids who want to do it, but for those who don't want to, they're in a lose-lose situation, but not a little one, whatever decision you make you're going to suffer, a lot.

The father who wouldn't let his daughter date/marry anyone who hadn't served a mission evidently doesn't want his daughter to marry the Prophet or his First or Second Counselors....since no one in the current "leadership" served one.

May (but probably won't) make him think twice...

Almost a hundred years ago it was still pushed very hard but still was not a commandment but young ladies had (and still do) have major influence on up-and-coming missionary men. My grandfather met such a young lady and she told him that she would not even date him until he fulfilled a mission. So he did, came back, asked her out, and they eventually married.

I don't think much has changed in this area.

By controlling whether or not LDS men have access to LDS women for dating and marriage, the church controls their male members. Just creating the illusion that the women in the church won't marry a guy who didn't go on a mission is where the church's real power lies, because for the most part, it isn't true. Young people are guillable and will believe what their church leaders tell them once they've decided to believe in the church at all.

I saw many, many asshole missionaries when I served that I would NEVER want a daughter of mine to marry.

Just because a guy has 'RM' attached to his name means absolutely nothing.

Thanks to Kimball and church rhetoric continually taught in every meeting every week including the little kids, men are to serve a mission period. Notice that Kimball did not leave an out. There is no other path that is laid down as an honorable alternative.

Didn't serve a mission? You are unworthy no matter the reason.

Guilt ridden dogma to depress and control with guilt and fear of family reprisal.

No wonder a child will off themselves rather than disappoint family by being truthful so they find ending the internal turmoil a better choice.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/29/2015 09:21AM by AmIDarkNow?.

If Commandment = f(your stake president)

It is local priesthood leader roulette.

I know of a young man, a temple worthy young man, who was in his early twenties and was refused a recommend to get married in the temple by his stake president. The reason given was for "not keeping the commandments" since the young man had not served a mission. He was told his marriage would never work and he being allowed a temple marriage would be an abomination and mock God. This was devastating to he and his fiancé...particularly to him and his self-worth as an LDS priesthood holder. Very determined, forceful, and professionally/socially adapt parents with a great deal of 'social capital' took this up past SP level to have the SP persuaded/counseled to change his mind on the matter. This stake president has since been 'moved up' the church leadership ladder. The couple is happily married, couple of kids, and very church active. Great example young TBM family to others in their ward.

Like so many things in TSCC the call on if something is a commandment, how 'big' a commandment it is, how supposed 'sins' should be dealt with, etc. are subject to priesthood leader roulette. And those above bishops and stake presidents will never intervien - at least not openly.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 04/29/2015 09:36AM by mannaz.

More of a directive from the Politburo than a commandment.

When I began dating my now wife, my future father-in-law told me that I was 80% of what he wanted for his darling daughter and if I went on a mission, I'd be 100%.

BTW, I didn't go on a mission - joined the military instead. We've been married for almost 30 years, and his comment permanently hurt what could have been a great relationship. Now it is merely cordial.

LOL. Every young, worthy male member of the church is "strongly encouraged," "expected," and "called by the prophet" to serve a mission but it is not "required" or considered "a commandment." This from Mormon.org http://www.mormon.org/faq/serve-missions

They might as well make it a commandment because they sure as hell act like you are breaking a commandment if you don't go.

^^^^^^^^

No SH**! You will be asked when you are 45 years old why you chose not to go on a mission. You will be reminded every Sunday for the rest of your life that you didn't go - either by family, friends, or idiot ward members.

It is better to go and be sent home for whatever reason than to not go in the first place, but the most important thing is to "Return with Honor." <puke>

superman4691 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Only then would he consider allowing his
> daughter(s) to become involved with the young man.

It's amusing when parents think they can control who their kids become involved with. And sad.
It's this kind of attitude that drives families apart, based on "church doctrine."

but he never once told me who I could date, nor did he get involved in any way. That comment is so ridiculous.

In fact, my dad and mom just couldn't figure out why I wouldn't marry the nonmormons I dated because they saw how the mormon guys acted.

I thought I had to have an RM, too, becauase that is what they were telling us back in the 1970s. So I gave up 3 chances to marry nonmormons. Now, after my failed gay/straight marriage, I am in a 10-year relationship with one of those nonmos.

Even as a TBM I started to tell my little son that he was never going to serve a mission. A mission nearly destroyed my slightly disabled brother. My son told me recently that when they used to sing "I hope they call me on a mission" back in primary, that he was so glad he knew he'd never have to because I had told him so.

And my dad never served a mission, neither did 3 of the last 4 bishops of the ward I live in.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/29/2015 11:07AM by cl2.

It's the modern day angel with a flaming sword mentality.

Except that many members are "impressed" that they are speaking on behalf of the angel....

Many decades ago, when I attended YBU, I was in the same student ward as my younger brother. I was an RM, he had not gone....yet.

My brother asked the RS President, who was also a student, out on a date. She turned him down, with the comment that she would never date a young man who chose not to go on a mission.

A few weeks later, she sat down at my table for lunch. She clearly did not know my relationship with my brother. Somehow in the conversation, she let it be known that she was interested in going out with me (pushy broad.....ha). I commented that it had come to my attention that she only dated RM's. She said that she HAD CHECKED, and that I was an RM and therefore eligible.

I reminded her of her conversation with my brother (she was in shock that he was my brother....I guess her investigations had not gone that far). I told her that I made it a practice not to date girls who thought that my brother was beneath them.

So, while I never asked her out, she did finally ask me to some Sadie Hawkins affair, and I went. Noooo, I did not marry her.....lol.

I was NEVER worthy, and very proud of that fact.

Ron Burr

IF you could have lied enough to go anyway, you'd likely have been made an A.P.!!! ....... Well maybe not you exactly, but that is how it works in general.

I could not have done it. Obeying just ain't in my DNA. I thought it better to stay home than to be sent home and embarrass my dear folks, who I loved. So I finished college, got a job and partied on.

RB

I understand Monson never went on a mission, isn't an RM, and looks where HE ended up.

So much for the RM idea.

NONE of the first presidency served a full-time mission.

Thirty years ago, I asked my fiancé why he hadn't gone on a mission. He answered honestly--I wouldn't have stayed, too many rules. We got married in the temple and I don't think anyone gave him a hard time about it. For a church run by Gawd himself, they sure do manage to be inconsistent.

You are commanded to share the gospel. Between 18 to your early twenties for men, the way to do that is to go on a mission. The lds leaders don't want the bad publicity of a "commandment" to go on a mission so they let the scripture do the commanding. "Send forth the Elders" "Call upon all nations" There are few active young men who don't know that they are commanded to go on a mission.

according to my current stake president "missions aren't for everybody. only those young men who are physcially, mentally, and spiritually strong and prepared will serve."

he also added that there are significant number of things that will keep them from serving. Obvious things, like legal issues, and the less obvious, like addictions to internet/games/technology. Morality issue came up but they weren't dicussed in detail. My take is that if you bang your prom date and confess you wont go on a mission, but if you get a handy from the Bishop's daughter and confess you will go.

and IF a guy screws every willing female with in a 13 county radius and then LIES enough to go anyway..... THAT is how A.P.s are made / selected.

Maybe since Tommy Boy changed the ages for missionaries a couple years ago!?? Then afterwards TBM families, Bishops, Young Men, and Stake Presidents decided it was now a "Commandment"!!??

This thread reminds me of my freshman year at BYU. As an introverted lad, and with much coaxing from my dorm floor friends, I finally worked up enough courage to ask out one of the girls from our ward to a dance.

She also just so happened to be the great granddaughter of GBH.

Cut to the night of the dance. At our first real moment alone together, the 1st question out of her mouth: "Are you planning to serve a mission? Because if not, I do not see a future with you."

My eyes glued to the floor, I sheepishly admitted that I wasn't, and not another word was spoken between us after that. A great introduction and conclusion into the world of BYU dating for me.

About a year later I saw her as I walked home from campus. A great big fake smile on her face, she waved vigorously in an attempt to get my attention. I kept walking past her as if she didn't exist, repaying her past courtesy in kind.

And the practice continues.

My two sons were both dumped by young LDS ladies while dating once they learned they weren't planning on missions. Which is fine, because my boys deserved and ended up with better.

There was no leeway, there was no out. You were told by the prophet every young man was to serve a mission. The social pressure was enormous. My girlfriend did not pressure me to go, but she explained that if I didn't go that she would get all kinds of punitive pressure on her for keeping me home. I was leaning on not going because I did not believe the B of M was authentic and had problems with blacks and the priesthood etc etc. I went to a friend's farewell, and a girl I knew well from High School asked me if I had decided not to go, I told her probably I wouldn't. She told me that she thought life would be hell in Utah if I did not go and even if I did not believe I should get it over and do it.

It has always been a COMMANDMENT.

It is just not always enforced!

Women are also COMMANDED to marry RMs.

Nothing has changed!

I know it was told to me that it was a commandment. And thus I went.


About his other comment:
" He then went on to state he would never allow any of his daughters to date or associate with a boy (falling onto the above category) that hadn't honorably served a mission, or should be serving a mission but wasn't."

This truly annoys me. Are there going to be guys I'd prefer my daughter didn't date? Sure. But to say you won't let them date or associate with guys who didn't go on a mission? So that's going to mean that his daughter is not 16 (I hope) And she is old enough to be dating RM's. So then how is he going to stop a 19, 20, 21 yr old girl from dating a non RM? Its her life, you can't control everything your kids do. But I guess that is the way of Mormons. CONTROL CONTROL CONTROL.

growing up on the East Coast, it was definitely a commandment! I can't hardly remember youth lessons without an emphasis on "every worthy male is commanded to serve a mission."

As a female I had the privilege of opting out, but even then there was a bit of a wink with females going, every female in one of my smaller wards went on a mission except one. Now, all but 2 of them had bachelors degrees when they left, with the mission age 21 for women it was very possible to finish an undergrad before going. I know many women who did that. Better than going at 19 with no education at all...

I think there's some needless parsing of commandment as compared to something the prophets said a person should do.

This is one of those Mormon apologetic abuses of language. It reminds me of efforts to distinguish between "doctrine" and something that a leader just said. Doctrine isn't some magical word. It just means teaching. Teaching amounts to what is said or written by the teachers. But, it is a convenient ruse to blow off some crazy teaching of the church that has become embarrassing by simply waving it off as "not doctrine."

At the same time in this discussion, when someone in authority says "you should do X". That's a command. You'll notice command is the first part of commandment. Reference to the Celestial Kingdom is not required.

But if you must go there...Sin is that which is against God's will. God's will per Spence the Great was that young men go on missions. Acting contrary to God's will would be sin and require repentance before going to the Celestial Kingdom.