I was looking at the bios of the new 1st pres and acting pres of the 12. When I got to Ballard, I saw that it said that as a young man he served a full-time mission. It hit me that I don't remember it saying anything about missions of the 1st presidency. Can it be that we have another group where none of them served missions? Yet they're guilting young mormon men to waste two of the best years of their lives to serve THEM?

Those who did it were special, but those who didn't didn't lose esteem or standing.

Those that didn't go in my day 2002, were considered sons of perdition and were treated as such.

Remember, this was a different time. These men were of missionary age before most of us here were even born.

Wouldn't you think that if almightygawd knew from the foundations of the Earth who he would raise up to be PS&Rs, He would have found a way to give them the opportunity to serve a mission?

Turns out Nelson wasn't baptized until he was 16. His parents were inactive but never got in his way of what he wanted to do. He graduated med school at 22 and served in the Korean war as a medic.

Oaks in a lesson manual for Primary was quoted as saying " he was 17 and in the the national guard when the Korean War broke out and had to put away his plans for serving a mission." The war lasted 2 years tops. It does not even look like he was sent to Korea, just that his National Guard unit was mobilized.
My uncle volunteered for the Navy 2 years before world war II started when he was a young teenager, he was discharged in late 1945 and was then called on a mission. He finally married my Aunt in 1948. My Uncle thought the Church was "bullshit" and he still managed to serve a mission and spent 7 years in the navy.

Monsoon used that excuse also, that he was in the reserves. However he resigned his commission when he was 19, never served any active duty and was off to U of U and was married by the time he was 21.

But all the other young kids should put off college and marriage and 2 of their best young adult years and go on a mission.

War trumps missions.

I know the policy has shifted back and forth through the years. My stake president told me I'd not be a good fit as a missionary since I spent time in the military. He said I was excused. Be and most of the men in my ward had servedin the military and few had gone on missions.

Eyring was a District Missionary in New Mexico while stationed there.

In the 16 years that I was in the church, to my knowledge, no stake president or bishop that I was involved with ever went on a mission. the missionaries are simply being used.
One day a bishop stated in elders quorum that those who do their home teaching would be taken into consideration with it came to higher level positions. pure puke. its always get along, play along, go along. that is all that counts that is just another lie that helped me to leave.
it's a tragedy that this very important subject is not taught in college. it is more important than differential equations for example

One thing about NOT serving a mission is that later in life no one can remark, "Hey, aren't you the elder who ...?"

AFAIK no one in the First Presidency (Nelson, Oaks, Eyring) served a mission.

Its been said (don't know the one who first said it) that "Old Men start wars and Young Men [and women] fight them" (my emphasis).

They will CALL YOU on a missing - and never call you off - but WILL THEY GO if YOU CALL THEM?

M@t



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/21/2018 06:31PM by moremany.

Missions looked more and more attractive as the Vietnam war wore on.

Shummy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Missions looked more and more attractive as the
> Vietnam war wore on.

No doubt.

Very understandable.

I was actually 1-A when Gordy turned me down for a mission and a deferment.

Underwent 2 pre-induction physicals.

Hypertension was my out, not bone spurs lol.