- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
In the recent Ensign, President Eyring implies that when we are baptized, we promise to be missionaries, or to spread the gospel and warn our neighbors. I reviewed scriptures and church handbook regarding the requirements for baptism and do not see where potential members must agree to that. We agree to obey commandments, so perhaps if it is a commandment to be a missionary then that’s covered as part of the baptismal agreement. However, we can join the church, and never share the gospel once in our lives and still get our temple recommend, can we not? Young men are said to be commanded to serve a mission, yet we know they can not serve and still be worthy to enter the temple. If they “break” this commandment and not serve a FT mission, yet are worthy enter the temple, is that missionary commandment really a commandment? Or, is it more of a cultural expectation? The handbook says that young men 19-25 who are emotionally, physically, and mentally able are “encouraged” to serve full-time missions and later indicates that this is a priesthood responsibility. This indicates to me that for even the young men, spreading the gospel or warning our neighbor is not really a commandment and certainly not a promise we make at baptism. Thoughts?
Spencer Kimball said “Every Worthy Young Man Should Serve A Mission”. However, I personally found that local leaders during that period, when confronted with obstacles like a poor young man (myself) with no savings to serve a mission, encouraged me to stay home and just get married. So, I don’t see it as a core commandment like the Law of Chastity, for example. Also, I think SWK came out with that one because he decided that missionary work was his mandate or ‘strategic focus’ as a prophet. Culturally, there are strong expectations. Just like there are strong expectations that you wear a white shirt and tie to Church. Some young women grow up believing they should marry only a returned missionary. There is a cultural no-no associated with not serving.
Personally, I think it’s a personal decision. My spiritual experiences on my mission have sustained me during periods of semi-activity, and gave me spiritual boosts at different times in my life — so, if you go, keep a journal or you will forget. I did grow a lot on my mission and learned a lot about leadership. I’m glad I went actually, although it sure was hard getting there given my financial obstacles at the time.
You make good points — you can decide NOT to serve a mission and still be worthy to go to the temple. The CHI of instructions says YM are encouraged to serve a mission, which means it’s optional. Christ commanded us to preach the gospel to all nations, but never said everyone had to give up their early twenties and do it full time. Also, you have a apply to go — it’s not like conscription or the draft either, so you have choice in the matter.
I would say no, there is not commandment to be a missionary, but there is a commandment for everyone to share the gospel. Every baptized member covenants to take on Christ’s name, with an expectation (by covenant) to spread the Gospel to others (read the Abrahamic Covenant in the Bible dictionary).
Every YM is “encouraged” to serve a mission as part of these covenants, but many are not able to go for various reasons, and that is not in any way breaking their covenants because they aren’t able to be missionaries.
In our stake, they are starting to de-emphasize referring to one of the missions of the church as “missionary work”, but are trying to get all members in our stake to use the words “sharing the gospel”, because they are not the same thing.
I think sharing the gospel is a commandment, and there is a myriad of ways that can be done, one of which can be becoming a full-time missionary.
I’m still not convinced sharing the gospel could be considered a commandment in today’s lds church. I understand the missionary issue. I served a FT mission as well and enjoyed it, but agree it’s not for everyone. It’s not for me right now and I’m not planning on going on another mission when I’m a senior.
But back to sharing the gospel, for a newly baptized convert, there is certainly an expectation that they would want to share their new religion with others, but I find nothing in the baptismal interview any agreement or promise of such. It is also not discussed in the temple rec interview whatsoever. I don’t think it can be considered a commandment.
But, what do you think would be more important? Giving a rich church your money, or sharing the gospel with friends? Abstaining from coffee or sharing your beliefs about God with your neighbor? Professing a testimony of the restoration or sharing what’s in your heart with those around you? Doesn’t it appear as if the emphasis is in the wrong areas? I don’t know… just something I’ve been thinking about.
Cnsl1 wrote:But back to sharing the gospel, for a newly baptized convert, there is certainly an expectation that they would want to share their new religion with others, but I find nothing in the baptismal interview any agreement or promise of such. It is also not discussed in the temple rec interview whatsoever. I don’t think it can be considered a commandment.
I don’t think the interviews define every commandment. In the temple, there is the blanket “all other commandments” statement (can’t remember now the exact wording). But I think they cover specific ones that have been deemed necessary to the baptism or temple, but certainly there are more commandments than just those covered in those interviews.
Cnsl1 wrote:But, what do you think would be more important? Giving a rich church your money, or sharing the gospel with friends? Abstaining from coffee or sharing your beliefs about God with your neighbor? Professing a testimony of the restoration or sharing what’s in your heart with those around you? Doesn’t it appear as if the emphasis is in the wrong areas?
Good questions and good line of thinking. Hard to answer, because they can all vary greatly by times, places, or people. But I’d say sharing the gospel with someone seeking some answers in life is important. But if my neighbor was starving or ill…sharing the gospel wouldn’t be as Christ-like as providing them with assistance from “a rich church”.
Great post Cnsl1. Great question. On my planet, sharing the gospel is one of the three fold missions of the church, and it is DEFINITELY a cultural
commandment.Most of the issues I have with the LDS church stem from cultural expectations, rather than dogmatic beliefs. I think your are right on with your thought how we are emphasizing the wrong things way too often in the church today. You do make a good point. One can get a TR if they DON’T go on a mission – but they will get denied a TR if they smoke or don’t pay tithing.
:wtf: I have no problem sharing my gospel according to how I understand it. But I also don’t expect others to accept it beyond their present level of understanding. “Sharing the Gospel” can be done without trying to convert anyone – and, to me, that’s the distinction between what is considered a “commandment” and what is not. “Gospel” means “good news” – and part of the good news to me is viewing those whom others consider to be irredeemable as worthy of redemption – worthy of actual attention – worthy of help – worthy of love. It’s the fourth mission of the Church now, helping the poor and the otherwise needy. That’s not “missionary work”, per se, but it is “sharing the Gospel” in a very real, practical way, imo. Thus, I would say “being a missionary” isn’t a commandment – but “being a disciple” is.
There is obvious cross-over between those two in some areas, and I’m not sure you can be a disciple without preaching Christ to some degree, so at some point with some people in some situations I can accept that “being a missionary” is commanded. I believe HOW you do that, however, is up to you and the Spirit.
I take it you’re reading the same copy as me, which has quotes from various prophets on this. I find this VERY VERY hard. In fact, part of the reason I went inactive was perhaps the fact I was badgered to serve a mission (although I was a bit on the old side). I’m bad with people, and it takes me a long time to get to know them. I’m also not very good at teaching the uninterested or apathetic, let alone my friends.
To get around this, and to feel that I am able to say I’m doing something I use pass-along cards, have placed BoMs in numerous bookshelves, and do stuff on the internet. I occasionally teach with missionaries as it lets me off the hook a bit. But direct missionary work?
Thank you for your insights. Appreciated. I agree with the commandment to be a disciple, as we take upon us Christ’s name at baptism. Part of being a disciple is sharing the good news, but how you do that and in what capacity is certainly an individual and personal thing today. Eyring said as much when he stated that “there are many ways you can better meet your personal obligation to help find people for the missionaries to teach. The simplest way will be the best.” However, I still don’t really like the words “obligation to help find people for the missionaries to teach” because I don’t view my discipleship in that manner. But I get what he is trying to say and I like that he mentioned simplicity.
Cnsl1 wrote:In the recent Ensign, President Eyring implies that
when we are baptized, we promise to be missionaries, or to spread the gospel and warn our neighbors.I reviewed scriptures and church handbook regarding the requirements for baptism and do not see where potential members must agree to that. We agree to obey commandments, so perhaps if it is a commandment to be a missionary then that’s covered as part of the baptismal agreement. However, we can join the church, and never share the gospel once in our lives and still get our temple recommend, can we not?Young men are said to be commanded to serve a mission, yet we know they can not serve and still be worthy to enter the temple. If they “break” this commandment and not serve a FT mission, yet are worthy enter the temple, is that missionary commandment really a commandment? Or, is it more of a cultural expectation?…This indicates to me that for even the young men, spreading the gospel or warning our neighbor is not really a commandment and certainly not a promise we make at baptism…Thoughts? Missionary work is sort of an open-ended fuzzy commandment that they won’t really try to enforce too aggressively but that almost makes it worse in some ways the more you believe in it because like doug said in another thread the general idea is that if you think you might be guilty (of sin) then you probably are. For example, according to the Church we shouldn’t be “slothful” and expect to be commanded in all things (D&C 58:26-28). This missionary expectation is similar to home teaching and the counsel to not wait to get married or have children for the sake of other goals like career development; these ideas look like they are all based on the assumption that the Church is central to the purpose of our very existence and is supposedly the one and only true path to salvation.
So even if you have already done more than your fair share to help build up and strengthen the Church you could always do more and what’s worse is that you could have always done a better job than you did in the past. For example, if your children become inactive maybe it was mostly your fault and if you didn’t convert or re-activate your poor wayward neighbors and there is any way that you could have helped them to receive the blessings of the “gospel” then you will supposedly have to answer for it on Judgment Day. How are we ever supposed to know when we have done enough?
This kind of pressure can become a never ending guilt-trip if you let it be. This is yet another example where I think the Church really needs to lighten up and stop taking themselves so seriously. Personally, I think they could achieve much better results in terms of long-term growth and activity levels if they would try to focus on making Church membership more of a positive experience for people as much as reasonably possible rather than acting like it is something we are all just expected to endure exactly the way it is now mostly because it is all supposedly “true” and “right.” Simply expecting members to try harder to compensate for fundamental problems like general dissatisfaction with the Church in many cases seems like a major waste of time and effort to me.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.