- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I confess that this makes me reluctant to send DS (Who is considered highly functioning on the autism spectrum) to YM activities. I do not want him to feel less than if he can’t go or chooses not to go. Roy wrote:Quote:
Commit Now to serve a mission.I then invited all those that accepted that challenge to stand. I was overjoyed as the entire congregation of young men stood in response to an apostle’s challenge. Please follow up with your young men (if they did not attend, extend the challenge now). Ask them about their experience. Help them be worthy. Help them prepare. Help them keep their commitment to serve. You will be blessed if you follow this counsel. Your young men are needed in this great work, this I know.
I am concerned that this “theme” of browbeating the young men into committing to missionary service is only just beginning.
I really don’t like the idea of pressuring people to do things by getting them to commit on the spot and then holding them to it. This is something we were always encouraged to do in missionary work, and it always felt too pushy.
I also have a problem with the idea of using “keeping commitments” as a lever to get people to do things even if they may have changed their minds. It’s entirely possible a young man will “commit” to serve a mission at camp, and later decide it’s not for him. He shouldn’t feel like he has to go just because he previously indicated he would. And a young man on a mission shouldn’t feel like he can’t go home early because of his previous commitment to serve two years.
BYU always used this commitment angle to push back against any criticism of the honor code. The idea was that you already committed to follow it, so now you must accept it without question. They always used this quote from Karl Maeser which was supposed to illustrate integrity:
Quote:“I have been asked what I mean by ‘word of honor.’ I will tell you. Place me behind prison walls–walls of stone ever so high, ever so thick, reaching ever so far into the ground–there is a possibility that in some way or another I may escape; but stand me on the floor and draw a chalk line around me and have me give my word of honor never to cross it. Can I get out of the circle? No. Never! I’d die first!”
I always thought this was stupid. If you somehow convinced me to give my word never to leave a chalk circle, would I really stand there until I died? Of course not. I’d decide that my previous promise was stupid, and I’d go ahead and break it.While there is value to keeping commitments and following through on promises, I also believe in the freedom to change one’s mind. No one should be pressured into serving a mission based on some “commitment” they may have made under peer-pressure.
There’s something I’ve been wondering about. Is the church shooting themselves in the foot with this missionary push? I’ve heard that the mission age was lowered in an attempt to keep young men in the church, but is that actually true? Do missions make men more likely to stay in the church, or are the kinds of people who are more willing to go on missions those who are already more likely to stay in the church? I have also heard conflicting arguments about young men who don’t want to go deciding to leave the church rather than face the stigma of not being a returned missionary, suggesting that the pressure to serve a mission could actually be contributing to the attrition of young male members. And a bad mission experience can definitely affect someone’s desire or even ability to remain active in the church.
I know my horrible mission experience is primarily what has driven me away from the church. And among the other young men in I knew from my priests quorum in high school, I know at least one other who left the church because of a horrible mission experience.
What is the purpose of this new push for missions? Even if it results in higher missionary numbers in the short-term, what are the long-term effects going to be?
Arrakeen wrote:
What is the purpose of this new push for missions? Even if it results in higher missionary numbers in the short-term, what are the long-term effects going to be?
The idea that the mission age was lowered to help keep young me (and women) in the church is speculation, the church never stated that. But it’s reasonable speculation, the timing and everything else add up.
Other than that I think the missionary push is all about numbers – church growth. COVID did hurt, but the “leveling off” of church growth was already apparent prior to COVID.
Long term effects? I have no idea. The seeds of my faith crisis were planted on my mission as well. I don’t think that’s uncommon. However, there is credibility to the idea that those who serve missions are more likely to stay and serve throughout their lives and to become church leaders.
Arrakeen wrote:What is the purpose of this new push for missions? Even if it results in higher missionary numbers in the short-term, what are the long-term effects going to be?
I’m guessing that this is a reaction to the current state of the church’s growth. A gigantic membership drive essentially. I’d speculate that this’ll be similar to their last big push in 2012-13. “Hastening the Work” I think was what they billed it as. Short term, they’ll probably have some early success, a higher attrition rate, followed by a gradual downturn.
Though, when I was in the MTC, we were told that the purpose of our missions was purely for our growth. That, if the church really wanted more baptisms, they would send adults with much more life experience than us. It was our teachers that told us that, but I wouldn’t doubt if that reflected the Q15’s thoughts also.
For the long term effects, I am pessimistic. I imagine it’ll be something similar to Zion’s Camp. Some casualties, some future leaders made and everyone gains experience in one form or another. A ‘sifting’ if you will. I want to say it’ll be a net negative, but my mission was also the largest contributor to my faith crisis, so I am biased.
What a fascinating discussion. I think I must have been a very difficult missionary for most of my companions and a challenge for my second mission president. I didn’t mean to be, but it seemed to work out that way quite often. At one point my second mission president asked me if I was happy on my mission. I said I was basically, although I didn’t walk around all day with a giggly smile. He seemed to accept that. Another time after accepting and completing an assignment with the other junior companion on splits – I was the senior of the juniors, word must have gotten to the president about our almost James Bond operation, because he asked me if I wanted to go home, but it was the furthest thing from my mind. Why would the seniors assign us to do something that would get us in trouble, especially when one of them was the district leader? I just came up with the methods and made the tactical decisions that got us back to our companions in one piece with the desired result. We didn’t harm anyone or break any sexual morality laws. Talk about being naive and needing to grow up. He didn’t press the matter. On my very first preparation day I was pared with a notorious elder while our companions had to make visa renewals at the country’s border. We ended up on a double date at a sort of commercial regional fair watching some event in the bleachers with my “date” pointing her lips at me when she asked me questions. I thought she was blowing me kisses, but I later found out it was how people in that country point at things when their hands are busy or they are too far away to not confuse you with another person (I insisted on sitting on the other side of my companion from her).
At the finish of my mission, I was a district leader out in the boonies. I mentioned to the mission president on my exit interview that I had had some difficulties with my last companion, and he replied to my amazement that now I knew how it felt. Floored me.
I was always afraid to go on a mission but I lived in a town where everybody did it unless there was something wrong with you. So, I went. I kept hoping the second coming would happen first and make it not necessary, but no such luck. So, I went. I’m glad I did now, but my mission was certainly more to my benefit than the people I tried to serve. But I think I just barely made it through without serious disaster. Thanks to God and a very wise mission president. This is a topic that has been on my mind again lately. My summary of where we LDS currently stand on the issue of the choice to serve missions.
If you’re male then you made a commitment to serve when you were baptized.
If you have a health limitation or disability that might prevent a regular proselytizing mission then a service mission can be arranged instead.
If you are on a mission and contemplating leaving early then do not do it as that would be a big mistake.
If you have returned home early due to a reason that was not within your control (including mental illness) then your intent and the time of your service is sanctified and acceptable.
If you returned home from your mission early then you might just say that you served a mission to XYZ location and not disclose that you came home early.
Missionaries that return early are to be treated with compassion and not encouraged to prove themselves by returning to missionary service.
Men are strongly discouraged from requiring that their potential marriage partners be RMs.
If you’re female then you have the option to serve a mission.
Females have historically been encouraged to require that their potential marriage partners be RMs (I looked but did not find an LDS GA giving this advice. I think it is mostly done through the YW program). This teaching has not been repudiated despite clear opportunities to do so. However, I like to think that it is being quietly deemphasized.
You may feel the desire to serve but receive personal revelation to postpone or that full time missionary service is not part of God’s plan for you.
How does that fit with your understanding? Am I off base?
I would add that for some units, I am hearing that there is pressure on the YW to go on a mission as well (if there are enough YW already going) just like it used to be for the YM. I have also heard about more meetings to invite couples on senior missions in greater numbers.
Roy wrote:
Men are strongly discouraged from requiring that their potential marriage partners be RMs.…
Females have historically been encouraged to require that their potential marriage partners be RMs (I looked but did not find an LDS GA giving this advice. I think it is mostly done through the YW program). This teaching has not been repudiated despite clear opportunities to do so. However, I like to think that it is being quietly deemphasized.
Are you talking teachings or culture? I’ve heard murmurings that the only marry RMs cultural practice has been semi-adopted by men as well. Now with so many women serving missions men are starting to add that to their wish list for a partner. I can’t imagine a YM lesson teaching that but I think men decided that if it was good for the gander, it was good for the goose.
Perhaps it is as you say Roy, that men might receive teachings to
notrequire potential marriage partners to be RMs precisely because more and more YM are adopting that mindset. I’m also hearing that the stigma associated with returning home from a mission early is far less a thing than it once was.
I haven’t attended church much over the last few years and I certainly don’t attend youth meetings so I don’t know what messaging they’re receiving. I do think the “it’s an obligation” messaging worked though. Currently our ward has several youth out on FT missions. Maybe seven or eight kids out of a ward with SM attendance in the 150-200 range. That seems a lot to me.
I must confess that I haven’t paid much attention lately to what kind of pressure is being put on YM or YW to serve missions or to marry those who have, since that’s a cohort I have dealt with much in recent years. But I have been increasingly aware of pressure put on older/retired couples to serve missions (or work in temples, or take on various other assignments, none of which I am keen to do). Our stake occasionally holds meetings to encourage senior members to consider various possibilities (“Have we got plans for YOU!!”). My wife is much more orthodox than I am (and I’m a fairly low bar), but thankfully she’s not interested in any of that. We retired a year ago, but have been keeping it a secret at church simply because we don’t want to be put on the spot with all that stuff. Over my lifetime I’ve given way more to the church than it’s worth to me, and I’d like to have my “golden years” (a misnomer if there ever was one) to myself–or maybe do non-church volunteer work (my wife is already involved in that). She tells me of a ward she lived in before our marriage where the bishop chided people who did non-church volunteer work, saying that if they had time for stuff like that, they should be dedicating it to the church. (Whatever happened to “men should be engaged in a good cause of their own free will …”?) nibbler wrote:
Are you talking teachings or culture? I’ve heard murmurings that the only marry RMs cultural practice has been semi-adopted by men as well. Now with so many women serving missions men are starting to add that to their wish list for a partner. I can’t imagine a YM lesson teaching that but I think men decided that if it was good for the gander, it was good for the goose.Perhaps it is as you say Roy, that men might receive teachings to
notrequire potential marriage partners to be RMs precisely because more and more YM are adopting that mindset. I’m also hearing that the stigma associated with returning home from a mission early is far less a thing than it once was.
My understanding of the church leadership being unhappy about YM that would require their potential marriage partners to be RMs comes mostly from Elder Holland’s comments from the YSA FAce to Face event in 2016
Quote:“I was in the missionary executive counsel with President Russell Nelson when we wrestled through this issue to lower the age to 18 for young men and 19 for young women. And indelibly imprinted on my soul forever was President Thomas Spencer Monson thumping the table, pointing a finger, declaring what we would and would not do on this. He was very supportive. You remember that announcement; I mean that electric moment when he announced that in general conference, but more privately he had said, and of course he said it publicly too, but this was in the formative period of the policy. He was adamant that we were not going to create a second class citizenship for young women who did not serve a mission.
“We lean on the young men to go as much as we can; we’re pretty straight forward about that. We do an arm twist and a knee pull and go for the jugular on the men. But even there, let me be serious, if a young man doesn’t go, that does not preclude him from our association and admiration and his priesthood service and his loyalty and love of the Lord in the future in the Church. That ought to be true for young men as well as young women, but adamantly for young women.
“President Monson never intended for all the young women in the Church to go on missions by dropping that age. We’re very grateful for those that go. It’s changed the face of the Church. It’s going to continue to change the face of the Church. We went from something like 8 or 10 or 12 percent to 30 or 35 percent of the missionary force of the Church being young women and everybody knows that a sister is twice as effective as three elders. But we do not want anyone feeling inadequate or left out or undignified or tarnished because she did not choose to serve a mission. We’re a little irritated with young men who say, ‘I’m not going to date you because you didn’t serve a mission…. … We do not want that type of climate over dating or marriages or who is really faithful in the Church or isn’t. Those are decisions we all make.”
I have also found references to missionary service being a priesthood duty.
Quote:“Today I reaffirm strongly that the Lord has asked every worthy, able young man to prepare for and serve a mission”
“Young women absolutely do not have the duty of serving missions. Young men do as a consequence of holding the priesthood”
“The personal decision each young man must make is whether or not he will fulfill his priesthood duty to serve a mission.”
“As he prays about serving a mission, he should also remember that by receiving the priesthood, he has already accepted the sacred responsibility to “warn, expound, exhort, and teach, and invite all to come unto Christ” (D&C 20:59), including by serving as a full-time missionary. If young men are not able to serve because of poor health or a disability, they are honorably excused.”
The JRH quote sure is interesting. It’s unfair to read things that weren’t actually said into his comments but it’s hard not to. Mostly just a reiteration that it’s an absolute obligation for YM. There should never be a second class citizenship for women but for men…
He did say that not serving shouldn’t preclude someone from getting access to “association and admiration” and love of the Lord (Yikes! It’s more of that obey all the cultural obligations or you won’t have the Lord’s love messaging on full display) but the way he leans in extra hard to say that shouldn’t be the case for women implies that it kinda sorta is okay if the men get some dosage of that.
They don’t want the women feeling inadequate, left out, or tarnished for not serving but for men…
So it’s more than just access to the dating pool. It’s being second class saints with an artificial ceiling placed on access to admiration, association, and the Lord’s love.
Push and pull motivation. The mission is presented as mostly push motivation, do it to avoid all the negative things that will happen if you don’t. It would be nice (and less prone to manipulation tactics) if missions were mostly driven by pull motivation. Check out all this cool stuff that you can do as a missionary!
But humans are gonna human. Any time one outcome is presented as the favorable outcome, or in the case of a mission they only favorable outcome, then anything less is going to be unfavorable. Even with pull motivation.
In short, you catch more flies with honey. The mission program ain’t honey so they have to resort to guilting, shaming, and obligating kids into going in order to keep the numbers up.
Ok. I think I’ve gone far enough down the rabbit hole for today. I found the following “Young Women – Real Guardians” talk by Elder Haight from 1977. Quote:My remarks this morning are directed to the young women of the Church, particularly those who are dating our young men. I desire to be appropriate and correct in what I say, but because of necessity and the urgency concerning this matter, I must be very direct and candid.
Some young men cannot go on missions because they are not worthy.
I challenge the young women of the Church who associate with and date our young priesthood bearers to become real guardians of their morality. You can. You must. Many of you are. Please do not underestimate your role. I am aware that the total responsibility is not yours. However, on a date you can set the proper atmosphere to encourage your companion to honor the commandments of God. In fact, you have the opportunity to emphasize the Mormon ideals of womanhood in all their honor and glory. I know the Lord expects it to be so.
You young ladies have a profound influence on young, masculine behavior. Young men wear clothes they think you like. Their hair will be cut to please you. You can control how fast they drive their cars if you want. They will dress as grubby as you like. You need not dress in the extreme fashions of the world. Are you aware that fashions and styles are promoted because someone has a product to sell? The rightness or appropriateness or effect on a youthful society does not matter as long as it sells. But the day will come when the world will follow the ways of the Church. Its influence will be as though flowing from the stars to affect the actions of men. Your influence with young men is important. You encourage Church standards and dress and conduct.
Interviews with some prospective missionaries regretfully indicate that some actions involving young women are most disappointing. Some are even ugly and are far, far different from what is expected of you. The Savior knew so well our weaknesses. He warned: “Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit … is willing, but the flesh is weak.” (Matt. 26:41.)
Young women, lift the tenor of your association with our young men now preparing to be worthy so their bishops will be impressed to call them on missions. The young man you are with in a car or at home is needed in the Lord’s work. Hundreds, even thousands more like him are needed—prepared in the Lord’s way.
The young men you are dating are in training for missions and hold the priesthood. Bishops have found these young men worthy. Hands have been placed upon their heads. They have received the priesthood of God. Just think. The Lord has given them authority to preach, teach, expound, exhort, baptize—a divine commission to act for and in behalf of the Lord Himself. The young man you may be with probably is a priest. He wants to be worthy to receive the higher priesthood and, if worthy, to someday have authority and keys of spiritual blessings. He is not “just another young man.” He is a very special young man. He is in training. He is going on a mission. You can be a great blessing to him. You, a young lady he admires, can help him avoid serious pitfalls.
This idea was echoed (however, much less explicitly) at least as late as 2013 by Elder Todd Christofferson.
Quote:To the young women, don’t lose that moral force even before you have it in full measure.
The official current stance, and the general practice in most missions, is to accept that teaching missionaries who struggle enough to have unhealthy, negative impacts might have to go home to a service mission – and to encourage that option as equal and legitimate. There are plenty of cases where that water has not gotten to the end of the local stake, ward, branch, and member rows – but it is the current, official church policy.
As for expectations based on sex, it hasn’t changed, generally. A much higher percent of young men still serve teaching missions than young women. More young women are serving missions, but it still isn’t close.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.