DiscussMormonism.com

Below is a link to an article about the LDS, 19-year old star quarterback on Cal's football team and the pressure for him to leave school and go on a mission. A pretty good article, and a couple of quotes stuck out to me. The first is from the Bay Area LDS spokesman:

"The thing to remember is the mission is a volunteer service, not an assignment,'' said Jay Pimentel, a Bay Area church spokesman. From the church's standpoint, he said, "I don't think there is pressure. (The young men) hear from the pulpit what a great thing it is to go on a mission. In the church, there's no dividing line as these people get older: 'Did you go on a mission or not?' " (emphasis added).

Is he kidding? We all remember SWK's declaration that serving a full-time mission is the obligation of every worthy LDS young man. And, even today, the CHI directs: "Because all worthy, able young men should serve full-time missions, leaders give special attention to helping them prepare, particularly those who seem uncertain about serving." (emphasis added). To claim, as this spokesman does, that the Church itself does not put pressure on young men to serve missions, is laughable, in my opinion.

The other quote was from the boy's mother:

"There's no pressure from the church itself,'' she said. "But there's tremendous pressure from people in the church and some outside the church. The church won't shun them (if they don't take a mission) but some people do.''

Again, I think she's wrong about the Church's not applying pressure, but I agree that shunning does go on for young men who do not serve.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... N4I401.DTL

Rollo Tomasi wrote:Below is a link to an article about the LDS, 19-year old star quarterback on Cal's football team and the pressure for him to leave school and go on a mission. A pretty good article, and a couple of quotes stuck out to me. The first is from the Bay Area LDS spokesman:

"The thing to remember is the mission is a volunteer service, not an assignment,'' said Jay Pimentel, a Bay Area church spokesman. From the church's standpoint, he said, "I don't think there is pressure. (The young men) hear from the pulpit what a great thing it is to go on a mission. In the church, there's no dividing line as these people get older: 'Did you go on a mission or not?' " (emphasis added).

Is he kidding? We all remember SWK's declaration that serving a full-time mission is the obligation of every worthy LDS young man. And, even today, the CHI directs: "Because all worthy, able young men should serve full-time missions, leaders give special attention to helping them prepare, particularly those who seem uncertain about serving." (emphasis added). To claim, as this spokesman does, that the Church itself does not put pressure on young men to serve missions, is laughable, in my opinion.

The other quote was from the boy's mother:

"There's no pressure from the church itself,'' she said. "But there's tremendous pressure from people in the church and some outside the church. The church won't shun them (if they don't take a mission) but some people do.''

Again, I think she's wrong about the Church's not applying pressure, but I agree that shunning does go on for young men who do not serve.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... N4I401.DTL

The claim that there is no pressure on young men to serve missions is utter nonsense. I mean, honestly, have these folks forgotten the song taught to children in primary, "I Hope They Call Me on a Mission"? The pressure begins at a young age indeed.

Rollo Tomasi wrote:Again, I think she's wrong about the Church's not applying pressure, but I agree that shunning does go on for young men who do not serve.

Our stake in the late 60's had an almost constant theme of sending more missionaries. It was repeated in all of the meetings and from the time I was a Deacon we were often asked to raised our hands if we were going on a mission. RMs were often asked to speak to the Aaronic Priesthood classes.

by the way: The comment "...they're not strictly for proselytizing but also for community service..." does not reflect my particular mission. We were prohibited from doing anything except for missionary work.

I had three of four brothers go on missions and they -- and my parents -- were held up as serious LDS role models. I never considered NOT going on a mission...because it was expected.

Unlike many of the people who left the Church and still post how much they enjoyed their missions, I did not. Within a few months of going on my mission I developed serious depression because I could not improve myself enough to baptize.

I had no joy in failing as a missionary. I might have been the only one.

MormonMendacity wrote:

Rollo Tomasi wrote:Again, I think she's wrong about the Church's not applying pressure, but I agree that shunning does go on for young men who do not serve.

Our stake in the late 60's had an almost constant theme of sending more missionaries. It was repeated in all of the meetings and from the time I was a Deacon we were often asked to raised our hands if we were going on a mission. RMs were often asked to speak to the Aaronic Priesthood classes.

by the way: The comment "...they're not strictly for proselytizing but also for community service..." does not reflect my particular mission. We were prohibited from doing anything except for missionary work.

I had three of four brothers go on missions and they -- and my parents -- were held up as serious LDS role models. I never considered NOT going on a mission...because it was expected.

Unlike many of the people who left the Church and still post how much they enjoyed their missions, I did not. Within a few months of going on my mission I developed serious depression because I could not improve myself enough to baptize.

I had no joy in failing as a missionary. I might have been the only one.

As long as the success of a missionary is determined by the number of baptisms, missions will always be less than what they could be. How sad that personal growth, self-discipline, increased testimony, leadership learned, service performed etc all count for nothing against the number of baptisms.

The kid should stay home and play football, if that's what he wants. If it's good enough for Brigham's g-g-g-g-whatever-grandson, it's good enough for this kid.

Rollo Tomasi wrote:Below is a link to an article about the LDS, 19-year old star quarterback on Cal's football team and the pressure for him to leave school and go on a mission. A pretty good article, and a couple of quotes stuck out to me. The first is from the Bay Area LDS spokesman:

"The thing to remember is the mission is a volunteer service, not an assignment,'' said Jay Pimentel, a Bay Area church spokesman. From the church's standpoint, he said, "I don't think there is pressure. (The young men) hear from the pulpit what a great thing it is to go on a mission. In the church, there's no dividing line as these people get older: 'Did you go on a mission or not?' " (emphasis added).

Is he kidding? We all remember SWK's declaration that serving a full-time mission is the obligation of every worthy LDS young man. And, even today, the CHI directs: "Because all worthy, able young men should serve full-time missions, leaders give special attention to helping them prepare, particularly those who seem uncertain about serving." (emphasis added). To claim, as this spokesman does, that the Church itself does not put pressure on young men to serve missions, is laughable, in my opinion.

The other quote was from the boy's mother:

"There's no pressure from the church itself,'' she said. "But there's tremendous pressure from people in the church and some outside the church. The church won't shun them (if they don't take a mission) but some people do.''

Again, I think she's wrong about the Church's not applying pressure, but I agree that shunning does go on for young men who do not serve.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... N4I401.DTL

Oh man!!!! You are so right. There is nothing but pressure, from the Church-top down-to local members. One of the stated purposes of the Aaronic Priesthood that is taught regularly to the boys, is to prepare to serve and honorable mission. And there is still the status that if a boy does not go he is now a second class citizen. What a bunch of GARBAGE to say there is no pressure. The pressure is HUGE!!!

No pressure?

No good LDS girl will marry him, for the rest of his life he will be considered flawed, he will be used as an example of lack of commitment to God, not following the prophet, and be religated to a primary teacher because how can he be a good example to the youth if he hasn't even gone on a mission?

:-)

Now, I do know the rare exception to the above but lets be real... not serving a mission is like not getting married in the temple... it is a sure sign of a less than obedient, valient young man.

Sad but true. I actually do think the church is trying to alter this to some degree but the words of SWK ring loud and clear.

~dancer~

by the way: The comment "...they're not strictly for proselytizing but also for community service..." does not reflect my particular mission. We were prohibited from doing anything except for missionary work

.

Over the past 10 years or so missionaries are supposed to do at least 4 hours a week of community service. But to state that they are not strictly for proselyting is bunk as well. The few hours a week of service is nice but it is not most of waht they do and it is also done in a PR type way. Get them out there to do service can further the preaching.

truth dancer wrote:I actually do think the church is trying to alter this to some degree but the words of SWK ring loud and clear.

SWK's words do ring loud and clear to this day -- I neglected to mention another express policy in the CHI:

"Full-time missionary service is a priesthood responsibility of these young men." (emphasis added).

If this clear position does not constitute pressure, then I don't know what would.

Rollo Tomasi wrote:

truth dancer wrote:I actually do think the church is trying to alter this to some degree but the words of SWK ring loud and clear.

SWK's words do ring loud and clear to this day -- I neglected to mention another express policy in the CHI:

"Full-time missionary service is a priesthood responsibility of these young men." (emphasis added).

If this clear position does not constitute pressure, then I don't know what would.

The only thing that has changed since the SWK days is the so called "raising of the bar." Of course all this does is to further relegate the young man who does not serve to a "I wonder what so and so did to disqualify him for a mission" or "I wonder what so and so's problems are..." It now plants in the young man's mind who may actually have wanted to go, but committed some infraction that will disqualify him, even if he repents, that he really is something less then others. God may forgive him but the Church certainly holds him guilty as far as missionary service goes.

There is as much emphasis on serving a mission as there ever was, not less at all. It is taught, breathed, pushed cajoled, considered a major rite of passage and so on for all LDS boys. Sure it is a choice, but it is still portrayed as a duty and a commandment.

I stand corrected!

:-)

~dancer~