Pressure on LDS young men to serve missions ....

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Thomas S. Monson and Boyd K. Packer went into the military instead of serving a Mission.

In all fairness, they really didn't have a choice -- if they didn't join up, then they would have been drafted (as it was the height of WWII).

However, Dallin H. Oaks neither went into the military, and he did Not go on a Mission. Dallin H. Oaks instead got married when he was 19 years of age.

Some clarification: When Oaks was 19 and at BYU (in 1952) he was also in the Utah National Guard, and his unit expected to be called up at any time to go to Korea (the Korean War was then in full swing). It turned out that his unit was not called up. Moreover, during the Korean War, with the draft in place, the Church limited the number of missionaries called to serve. So I don't think Oaks bears any blame for not going on a mission.

Also, it was different back then when it came to missionary service -- the emphasis on all young men going was not the same as it is today (SWK's call for all to serve would not come until the 70's). Of the recent apostles, Neal Maxwell is the only one I know of who served a mission directly after his military service in WWII (including at Okinawa); James Faust and Tom Perry both served missions before entering the military service during WWII (it appears that Perry's mission was somewhat abbreviated because he was about to be drafted, and instead joined the U.S. Marines).

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Mormons who don't go on missions are not thought of as second class citizens by members of the church. They are not stigmatized, they are not ostracized, they are not thought less of, and nothing is held against them by "the church" Anyone who says that this is the case is a smiling ear to ear liar and should now remove him or herseslf to the flat rock from which he or she emerged.

I disagree; for young men active in the Church but who chose not to serve a mission, there is a very real stigma. I think as they grow into adulthood that stigma tends to fade, but during the very formative years when they are looking to find a nice LDS girl to marry, not serving a mission is a big negative. It's nothing official from the Church, of course, but it is common in Mormon culture (particularly in the Mormon Corridor). And it's something you can never truly avoid -- each member's membership record states whether, when and where one has served a mission. The stigma is very sad, and I wish the Church would do more to combat it.

[_Jason Bourne]

Even Jason is slowly, ever so slowly beginning to show some true colore here, and its painful, to say the least, to see yet another head spinning exercise in tendentious mudslinging at things most here clearly have virtually no understanding of (but actually think they can fool those who do know with their verbiage).

I am not sure what true color you are speaking of. I have been fairly consistent here. In some cases I defend the Church and argue against critics, and in some cases I may speak up about problems I see. I do not have a one track mind regarding the LDS Church. Some of it I think is terrific; some things I think could use improvement. I think the main thing that I do not like is the monolithic all or nothing Mormonism that you and P seem to portray. You do not have a corner on what an LDS person should be, look like or do. Your tendentious posts reflect that to often.

Mormons who don't go on missions are not thought of as second class citizens by members of the church. They are not stigmatized, they are not ostracized, they are not thought less of, and nothing is held against them by "the church" Anyone who says that this is the case is a smiling ear to ear liar and should now remove him or herseslf to the flat rock from which he or she emerged.

Oh and should I add your posts are full of personal ad hominem attacks. But there is a stigma in the Church. Girls are encouraged to marry an RM, young men who do not go are marginalized for a time. But I will agree that over time, as the young man who does not go matures, if he remains active the stigma fades. There are many very active and serving men who did not serve missions for various reasons.

Never the less, the pressure from 3 years old to the mid 20's is applied and when a young man fails to go there is a perception that there is something wrong with him. I have seen it and so has everyone else here. Heck, I have been guilty of it as well.

I did not go on a mission. I have never been punished or otherwise kept out of church callings or activities becauses I didn't. Nobody I have ever known has ever held it against me, nor shunned me because of it. The Bishipric in my Ward when events transpired such that I chose not to go, held nothing against me. This does not mean they were not dissapointed. This does not mean they would have rather I had gone. I would have rather gone. It was the damn dumbest mistake I ever made in my life, second only to my first marriage.

Your reasons for not going may well have been a mistake for you. For others it is a good decision not to go. Not all young men are cut out for a mission. I went and I am happy about it. For me it was a very good decision. But there was so much pressure and for me, I was never going to go in spite of the pressure from ward members. Though my inactive parents never pressured me. When through some spiritual experiences I knew I should go I was pretty fired up about it. But I was happy I decided to go out of more then it being required or expected.

Yes, it is a duty. Yes, it is a commandment and mandate from the Lord. Yes, there is pressure, and so what?

Encouragement is fine. Major programming week after week after week is not.

There is also pressure on young LDS men to do a lot of other things, and many of those are or the either utterly trivial, compared to going on a mission, or stupid, immature, or unambiguously evil

I am not sure what items you refer to so I cannot opine.

If you don't like it, don't worry about it, its none of your business. Find another church, get a life, eat, drink, and be merry at Dairy Queen, pull up your pants, turn your hat around, and get a job

Well Loran thank god it is not your Church and Jesus welcomes all people of all sorts of views and opinions as well as sinners and the weakest human. It may well be that you are just so much more ahead of the average Joe in testimony and sanctification. If so you should lovingly interact and teach rather then beat and request those less good then you to leave. On the other hand it man be well that it is your type that will destroy the Church. I think it may be the latter. Is this how you treat your home teaching families that may be inactive? Or is your bishop smart enough to keep your poison away from less active members?

[_ajax18]

So I don't think Oaks bears any blame for not going on a mission.

Good call. I appreciate that information Rollo. You always seem to find all the historical details. Where do you find this stuff out? Now if the Priests quorum would have just told the story like it was to me, we'd have both been happy, and there would have been no need to take offense at the question. I'm surprised they didn't seeing the details you gave seem to serve their interest. Perhaps they simply didn't know either.

Do you think the fact that the Church has raised the bar is going to lower the number of missionaries not just because of those ineligible but because those who weren't really sure if it was for them may start to see another route in life. I mean I doubt the Church wants to stigmatize non mission servers their entire lives. If they repent and become prominent leaders, perhaps the young people will look up to them and say, "He didn't go. He's successful. He appears to be going to the same place as the rest of us when he dies. "What happens to me if I don't?"

Maybe he should be going to save a few individuals from a race of people he didn't even know existed before and no other reason purely out of love and altruism, but how many 19 year olds really feel that way? I would guess the Church might see a bigger drop in the missionary force than they had first envisioned, unless they have some other form of pressure that I'm not aware of.

[_OUT OF MY MISERY]

I am amazed at Rollo's ability to know all this stuff...I like to read his posts...

Setting the bar higher for these young people ....sounds like to me a good idea....maybe???

There are some young people who are not ready for that....

My middle son we sent away to school ...thinking that is what he wanted and needed....he was miserable
after two years of being AWAY from home and him almost losing himself

we brought him home enrolled him in college here...he just had 4.0 semester.....we knew he could do it

but he was not ready to leave home yet

I do not mean to compare going on a mission as going to college. They are two different things...

Yet the idea is the same...leaving home is not always the best thing for some kids.....

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Do you think the fact that the Church has raised the bar is going to lower the number of missionaries not just because of those ineligible but because those who weren't really sure if it was for them may start to see another route in life. I mean I doubt the Church wants to stigmatize non mission servers their entire lives. If they repent and become prominent leaders, perhaps the young people will look up to them and say, "He didn't go. He's successful. He appears to be going to the same place as the rest of us when he dies. "What happens to me if I don't?"

A new option the Church now uses for some missionaries is a local "service" mission, where they may work in the temple, help in the local mission, etc. It's used for folks who are not well enough to leave home, for senior couples who are hesitant to leave their home, and some young men who don't' meet the "raise the bar" standard. I think it's a worthwhile option, but I don't think the general mindset of the membership yet allows for what some see as an "inferior" mission not to stigmatize young men who serve such local missions. That may change with time, but not yet. I've always been suspicious of the "raising the bar" dogma -- I think stats had a role in its creation. The Brethren knew from the stats long ago that there were going to be less 19-year old boys available for missions simply due to smaller families. In addition, the baptismal rate per missionary companionship since the 80's has dropped today by nearly half. So it was quite clear that the total convert baptism numbers were going to drop, which they have in the past decade. The "raising the bar" program provides a justification for lower numbers that the Brethren knew were to come, and gave them a way to argue "quality, not quantity" when the lower numbers (both in terms of missionaries and converts) come in, which they have.

[_Runtu]

Do you think the fact that the Church has raised the bar is going to lower the number of missionaries not just because of those ineligible but because those who weren't really sure if it was for them may start to see another route in life. I mean I doubt the Church wants to stigmatize non mission servers their entire lives. If they repent and become prominent leaders, perhaps the young people will look up to them and say, "He didn't go. He's successful. He appears to be going to the same place as the rest of us when he dies. "What happens to me if I don't?"

A new option the Church now uses for some missionaries is a local "service" mission, where they may work in the temple, help in the local mission, etc. It's used for folks who are not well enough to leave home, for senior couples who are hesitant to leave their home, and some young men who don't' meet the "raise the bar" standard. I think it's a worthwhile option, but I don't think the general mindset of the membership yet allows for what some see as an "inferior" mission not to stigmatize young men who serve such local missions. That may change with time, but not yet. I've always been suspicious of the "raising the bar" dogma -- I think stats had a role in its creation. The Brethren knew from the stats long ago that there were going to be less 19-year old boys available for missions simply due to smaller families. In addition, the baptismal rate per missionary companionship since the 80's has dropped today by nearly half. So it was quite clear that the total convert baptism numbers were going to drop, which they have in the past decade. The "raising the bar" program provides a justification for lower numbers that the Brethren knew were to come, and gave them a way to argue "quality, not quantity" when the lower numbers (both in terms of missionaries and converts) come in, which they have.

I'm not going to speculate on the "raising the bar" stuff, as I have no idea why they did that. But it seems rather odd that anyone would suggest that there's no stigma involved in not going on a mission. Several years ago I was Young Men's president in a ward in Utah, and one of our boys was a nice kid who had been adopted by a very controlling couple. He responded by being the "model child" and doing everything exactly as his parents asked: straight As in school, Eagle Scout, poster child for active Mormon youth. His younger brother rebelled and was in and out of jail from about 13-14 on. Anyway, this kid got his mission call to New York, and weeks before he was to enter the MTC, he told the bishop that he had never wanted to go on a mission, but did so because his parents expected him to go. I remember seeing him at church, and no one would talk to him. I told him that I thought a mission would be good for him, but I was proud of him for standing up for himself. Gossip was all over the place: some unspecified girl was pregnant, he was gay, he had a drinking problem. His parents put all kinds of pressure on him to go, but he didn't, so they kicked him out of the house.

Not long after that, another boy in our ward decided to go on a mission. This kid had serious social-anxiety problems and literally stayed home with his mother most of the time. I was kind of shocked that he was going to go. When he left on his mission, he immediately started having problems in the MTC: he was so homesick he couldn't function. And he was so shy he couldn't deal with being around people all the time. He lasted a few months (I think it was North Carolina), but he ended up coming home. Once again the rumors started, and they were just as ugly.

These are just two boys I know very well, but I've seen it in other places with other people.

[_Yoda]

Not long after that, another boy in our ward decided to go on a mission. This kid had serious social-anxiety problems and literally stayed home with his mother most of the time. I was kind of shocked that he was going to go. When he left on his mission, he immediately started having problems in the MTC: he was so homesick he couldn't function. And he was so shy he couldn't deal with being around people all the time. He lasted a few months (I think it was North Carolina), but he ended up coming home. Once again the rumors started, and they were just as ugly

It doesn't surprise me he didn't last long in NC. This is the Bible belt out here. ;)

[_OUT OF MY MISERY]

See this is just sad stuff...If someone does not fit in the box that has been created for them then watch out...

I could imagine the gossip that went on....My own family what ass holes they have been with my sons.....

The gossip that my own family spreads is enough to make me glad I never see them...I cannot imagine going to church every Sunday and knowing what people are saying about you behind your back....And yet knowing full well none of it is true...because they knew these young men and knew that that was not their character....yet people can be so cruel....

These are supposedly adults spreading these ugly rumors.....man tell people to get a life..and leave these young men alone

[_Gazelam]

Where do oyu live? Sounds like theres some seriously screwed up people in your stake !!