- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
My biggest concern with the missionary age change is that Pres. Monson’s own words will be ignored and the new minimum ages will be considered the only true departure age for righteous members, bringing improper pressure to leave at those ages. It has happened and is happening already in some areas, and I think the fact that Pres. Monson took the time to say, explicitly, that it shouldn’t become an expected default shows that the top leadership is aware of and concerned about that tendency in the membership. Seriously, I think the announcement itself is perhaps the best rebuttal of extreme extrapolations of what bothers people about Elder Evans’ statement.
DJ, I don’t think Elder Evans went that far, but it’s not a gigantic step from his statement to what concerns me – so, in that sense, I understand your concern and believe it has value.
Old-Timer wrote:My biggest concern with the missionary age change is that Pres. Monson’s own words will be ignored and the new minimum ages will be considered the only true departure age for righteous members, bringing improper pressure to leave at those ages. It has happened and is happening already in some areas
I share that concern, Ray. I’ve seen it too. I think, in fact, that this is what drives me to be frustrated with the topic of this thread. I believe that for many YM/YW, if they believe that God himself set in motion the change to lower the age of missionaries by revelation, then it’s going to be hard for them not to see it as their divine responsibility to go at the younger age. I agree that Pres. Monson explicitly said that it should not be the expectation for people to go at the younger age, and I have no reason to doubt that he did so, as you said, to head off the tendency of members to latch onto that kind of thing. Yet, here we are.I believe many bishops see this as an opportunity to keep YM, in particular, from going astray. YM leave the Priests Quorum, and the watchful eye of the Bishop, at 18. Many kind of go into limbo, earning money in temporary jobs, going to the Singles Ward, maybe going to college, where the Bishop can’t protect them. I spoke to a Bishop about it, in fact, and brought up how I worried that many YM might go even though they weren’t ready, and he stated that they are as ready as they need to be, and he was encouraging them to go.
Heber13 wrote:My daughter, age 19 when it was announced, called me right after the conference session. She was so excited, she was so inspired and felt the spirit tell her to consider it. Many, many people had a wonderfully positive reaction to the announcement.
Aren’t all good things ascribed to God? So…it doesn’t have to be a revelation for us to thank God for something good that happens in life. Including policy changes
Yes, absolutely. And I think that’s what I’m saying. It doesn’t have to be a revelation. Although I had some reservations about the 18-year-old part, I was excited about the lowering of the age for YW. What a great opportunity! I also believe it will necessitate a positive change in the way YW are taught. But turning it into a revelation, when it doesn’t seem to have been so, brings a different meaning to it. I’m glad your daughter has the opportunity to go. I hope she does; the world needs more sister missionaries. I still count my mission as one of the best things that has transpired in my life. If she feels inspired to go, that is fantastic. That’s her seeking God in her life and gaining access to the spirit; somthing I wish I could do again. But, just as Pres Monson was careful to point out the the age of 18 for YM shouldn’t be the new standard, he also pointed out that the age change for YW didn’t constitute a new mandate to go. It’s just a policy change that leaves it up to the individual. But if it had been announced as a revelation, voted on, and placed in the D&C either as section 139, or as OD 3, I believe it would be hard to think of it as anything but a mandate, both for YM and YW. I believe that is how it is being perceived by many.Old-Timer wrote:My biggest concern with the missionary age change is that Pres. Monson’s own words will be ignored and the new minimum ages will be considered the only true departure age for righteous members, bringing improper pressure to leave at those ages. It has happened and is happening already in some areas, and I think the fact that Pres. Monson took the time to say, explicitly, that it shouldn’t become an expected default shows that the top leadership is aware of and concerned about that tendency in the membership.
At least we have Pres. Monson on the the record against the practice to quote if necessary. Why do we try to out-Mormon each other? Can’t we just all get along?
Quote:Why do we try to out-Mormon each other?
Stupid hedges. People have been planting them for as long as people have lived, but they still are stupid.
On Own Now wrote:Old-Timer wrote:My biggest concern with the missionary age change is that Pres. Monson’s own words will be ignored and the new minimum ages will be considered the only true departure age for righteous members, bringing improper pressure to leave at those ages. It has happened and is happening already in some areas
I share that concern, Ray. I’ve seen it too. I think, in fact, that this is what drives me to be frustrated with the topic of this thread. I believe that for many YM/YW, if they believe that God himself set in motion the change to lower the age of missionaries by revelation, then it’s going to be hard for them not to see it as their divine responsibility to go at the younger age. I agree that Pres. Monson explicitly said that it should not be the expectation for people to go at the younger age, and I have no reason to doubt that he did so, as you said, to head off the tendency of members to latch onto that kind of thing. Yet, here we are.
I’m seeing this first hand with SIL. As you all know, my in-laws are very orthodox and when the prophet speaks, well….you know. So SIL put in her papers and will be leaving for the MTC about a month after her 19th birthday even though she has said, multiple times, that she has never had any desire to serve a mission. She wasn’t planning on serving a mission (I think she was hoping to be married before 21 so as to avoid that pressure) and made a point to let all of her family know, in an email, that this is the hardest thing she’s ever done and she’s not looking forward to it and will need extra support and prayers to get through it. This makes me sad. I’m all for young people serving missions if that is what they truly believe in and desire to do, but I don’t see that as the case with her. I’m sure it will be a good experience for her and she’ll grow in a lot of ways, but I just wish it had been a decision she came to out of a pure desire to serve, not because she feels like she has to.
I’m going to put in my 2 cents. I can see how Elder Evans statements could be read as saying Pres. Monson received a revelation (or inspiration). I can also see how it could be read that Elder Evans was just saying the regular Mormon (Christian really) statements when talking about a leader’s statements.
That said, I think the pressure is on for 17 & 18-yr olds. Being who I am and what I know, I very carefully explain to each young man the tolls of missionary work. Mind you, I don’t just walk up and lay it out for them, but I do cover the bad and the good when the topic is being discussed. Usually parents give me the evil eye, and when they do I make sure the parent understands that the young man needs to know that it ain’t all roses and ice cream. The roses and ice cream only happens once in a great long while. I think it is VERY important that each person who is contemplating of going to know the full consequences (good and bad).
They hear only good things from “mission reports” and other returned missionaries. If I were to guess (and it is a guess here), I would say 90% of return missionaries do not tell the bad. They will tell a good story that has some “possibly bad things”, but always end with some inspirational (there is that word) statement that makes it all OK. What they leave out is the bad that ends in bad with no “good return”. The youth need to know these stories as well.
I had companions go home from psychological issues to being robbed at gunpoint to having sex. Was there any “blessings” from these? Nope, not one. These dirty little secrets about missions should be told just as much as the pretty inspirational stories.
Well – isn’t that a side track, but I ain’t going to delete it.
Enjoy!
I agree, Jazernorth, and I told my son and daughter much the same thing (including not to let a numbers Nazi leader get to them, if they ended up having one). They need to know that missions in lots of places are days of disappointment made wonderful by moments of monumental joy. Sacrament Meeting reports from RM’s are how the myths you mentioned begin.
Old-Timer wrote:My biggest concern with the missionary age change is that Pres. Monson’s own words will be ignored and the new minimum ages will be considered the only true departure age for righteous members, bringing improper pressure to leave at those ages. It has happened and is happening already in some areas, and I think the fact that Pres. Monson took the time to say, explicitly, that it shouldn’t become an expected default shows that the top leadership is aware of and concerned about that tendency in the membership.
Seriously, I think the announcement itself is perhaps the best rebuttal of extreme extrapolations of what bothers people about Elder Evans’ statement.
I do agree with this, Ray. We have had the discussion with our 17-year-old. We really think the year away from home at college (BYU or not) has value in establishing some independence. And we also require they earn enough money to pay for half of the mission, which he hasn’t got. Our older son was 18 and at BYU when the announcement was made and did cal and want to go. Likewise, he didn’t have the money saved and he was already fully involved with his education pursuit complete with scholarship. It wasn’t really difficult to convince him to just finish the year and then go. His room mates both did apply, but neither actually left until after April. He had nearly 9 months away from home making his own decisions and meals and had the summer to make money. I think he’s much better prepared than he would have been had he gone basically right out of high school.
Jazernorth wrote:
That said, I think the pressure is on for 17 & 18-yr olds. Being who I am and what I know, I very carefully explain to each young man the tolls of missionary work. Mind you, I don’t just walk up and lay it out for them, but I do cover the bad and the good when the topic is being discussed. Usually parents give me the evil eye, and when they do I make sure the parent understands that the young man needs to know that it ain’t all roses and ice cream. The roses and ice cream only happens once in a great long while. I think it is VERY important that each person who is contemplating of going to know the full consequences (good and bad).They hear only good things from “mission reports” and other returned missionaries. If I were to guess (and it is a guess here), I would say 90% of return missionaries do not tell the bad. They will tell a good story that has some “possibly bad things”, but always end with some inspirational (there is that word) statement that makes it all OK. What they leave out is the bad that ends in bad with no “good return”. The youth need to know these stories as well.
I had companions go home from psychological issues to being robbed at gunpoint to having sex. Was there any “blessings” from these? Nope, not one. These dirty little secrets about missions should be told just as much as the pretty inspirational stories.
Agreed. See the post above. I am not in the “Best Two Years” club and actually sort of feel sorry for those whose mission really was the best two years of their lives. There is a lot about mission life one doesn’t know about unless he/she has been there – and we actually have two sisters out from our ward right now who are struggling because it’s not what they thought it was going to be.
I remember a thread where the bishop calls a sister and tells her that he felt inspired to call her. The sister knew that another person had gone to the bishop with concerns about her. The sister calls the bishop out on what he labeled “inspiration” but what she knew was the result of another person’s refusal to mind their own business. The bishop admitted as much but said that inspiration can come in many forms. The main portion of the thread was about the morality of presenting an “inspiration” as something that most will assume involved some form of supernatural knowledge.
OTOH it must be somewhat difficult for some individuals to have a church that believes in continuing revelation and then not have any notable recent developments to speak of. They may point to the Perpetual Education Fund, the building of smaller temples, the missionary age change. Are these things revelation, inspiration, or policy changes that amount to good business.
There can be a case made for each of these three categories based on the “
perspective” of the individual. I try to make allowances for other peoples perspectives. I do believe that in the church the more faith promoting perspectives do get repeated and promoted. Over time I absolutely believe that this is how the myth evolves. It is nothing sinister. It is merely people doing what people do. Interesting case study. I agree with you Roy. I don’t think anyone perpetuates the myths with a sinister motive. I do honestly believe that they don’t know they’re not speaking truth, or in other words, they believe what they’re saying is true even when someone from another point of view can clearly see it isn’t. Roy wrote:I remember a thread where the bishop calls a sister and tells her that he felt inspired to call her. The sister knew that another person had gone to the bishop with concerns about her. The sister calls the bishop out on what he labeled “inspiration” but what she knew was the result of another person’s refusal to mind their own business. The bishop admitted as much but said that inspiration can come in many forms.
The main portion of the thread was about the morality of presenting an “inspiration” as something that most will assume involved some form of supernatural knowledge.
OTOH it must be somewhat difficult for some individuals to have a church that believes in continuing revelation and then not have any notable recent developments to speak of. They may point to the Perpetual Education Fund, the building of smaller temples, the missionary age change. Are these things revelation, inspiration, or policy changes that amount to good business.
There can be a case made for each of these three categories based on the “
perspective” of the individual. I try to make allowances for other peoples perspectives. I do believe that in the church the more faith promoting perspectives do get repeated and promoted. Over time I absolutely believe that this is how the myth evolves. It is nothing sinister. It is merely people doing what people do. Interesting case study. My mission president always said “a part of inspiration is information.”
One definition of “Inspired” means:
Of extraordinary quality, as if arising from some external creative impulse.Next time someone says they say they are “inspired” I’ll accept that the “external creative impulse” might be an “earthly” one and not a “supernatural” one. Earthly information can still be a source of inspiration to act.
Webster makes it even less ‘extraordinary’: something having a particular cause or influence. So getting information can have an influence on someone’s perspectives and inspires them to do something. Oxford says ‘inspiration’ is: “the process of being mentally stimulated to do or feel something.”
I recognise however that in the church we usually see it as this definition: “imbued with the spirit to do something, by or as if by supernatural or divine influence.” As a coping mechanism I usually use the other definition in my mind when someone says that.
I see the angst in the opening post. The boundaries between “revelation” or “inspiration” or “prayerfully-arrived at idea” are fuzzy and we don’t know if president Monson walked into the Temple, spoke to God and came out with this new idea (I suspect not, however). But Evans response, to me, is typical of what we see of members — they want to believe in the deified church so desparately that after the prophet speaks, they immediately start coming out with philosophical ideas about the nature of revelation, the pure genius of the announcement, and imply (as Evans does) that this is another Thus Saith The Lord situation.
Remember when missions went down to 1.5 years? And how they had to reverse them back to 2 years again? At this point, we don’t know how well the lowered age policy will play out. It will take time before themes develop, and who knows, the policy may well be subject to adjustment.
I wanted to comment on this earlier but I had to make the traditional conference breakfast. I think I understand what you are saying, however I also think that when we say to members that we were inspired the interpretation of that is pretty clear. I honestly do not believe members interpret inspiration as anything other than spiritual interaction. And part of the point in my OP was that Pres. Monson never says he was inspired, although one could make the leap that he may have been if he were prayerfully considering the matter. Making the leap from there to revelation (which is different from inspiration IMO) is too much. And, yes, SD, I do believe Elder Evans is typical of many faithful members in this situation, and as I said earlier I don’t believe there is ill intent there. But this is how the myths begin – people will latch on to that article and quote it in sacrament meetings, just as some of us are latching on to Pres. Uchtdorf’s talk.
As a side note, I was an 18 month missionary and I do recall the issues surrounding the reversion back to 24 month missions (for most). I’m actually going to go back and research this (SWK was president, but I believe GBH made the actual announcement) and see how it was worded – I do recall believing for myself that it was revelation, and I do recall some wondering when it was changed back – but I was very TBM in those days.
I heard a ton of rationalizations after they put it back to two years. The ones I remember were a) there was a subset of rogue missionaries who would have been sent home or not survived 2 years and b) there was a large group of young men who would otherwise NOT have gone on missions if they had’ve been expected to stay for 2 years.I don’t agree with either of these interpretations. But these are examples of the reaching people do to preserve the comfort they feel in the myth of consistent revelation when top leaders in the LDS church make announcements.
I’d be interested in reading the announcement to see how it was worded.
I also believe the leadership permits these exaggerations to go unchecked. They don’t want to destroy people’s faith, and they benefit from a very compliant membership as a result. The only time I hear them place caveats on their statements of policy or prayerful consideration is when they think the membership will start a mass migration or think they are actually making a prediction! (Like when GBH indicated he thought we were headed for perilous financial times, prior to the bubble of 2008, 2009). At that time, he said he wasn’t prophesying.
And funny, he was right!
I think it would an interesting experiment in urban legends to post GBH’s prediction that there would be perilous financial times shortly before the housing bubble, label it as prophesy, and see what people do with it. I think it would spawn another faith promoting rumor. Of course, I would not do that. But I predict you would start hearing it in talks and lessons — until someone actually found the actual talk and discovered the portion when he said he was not prophesying.
Kind of like the piece we discussed a while ago that said a hush would fall over the room when people learn (in the next life) you lived in the time of Gordon B Hinckley….
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.