I wasted two years of my life

[_ludwigm]

Unfortunately, I have written my serious comment after a joke, so nobody read it.

I repeat (it is about the two years):

...
that age were the better for education. At that age could learn any young man/woman with the biggest efficiency. And that age will be wasted once and for all. Prodigalizing the human resources.

[_LCD2YOU]

You should have seen me talk to my family about Christianity in general and the REAL Church, the Holy Church in Rome[sup]TM[/sup].

Do you think that ex-members returning to speak against their former religion is unique to Mormonism? It isn't. It happens in all religions that, like Mormonism, claim exclusive rights to the truth and attempt to regulate the lives of believers on a large scale. An ex-member's inability (or lack of desire) to "leave the Church alone" has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the religion is true. I mean, you certainly wouldn't agree that Baptists or Jehovah's Witnesses possess the truth, but individuals who leave those denominations often "return" to warn, caution, or vent their frustrations concerning their experiences.

1. I think it does, at a very deep level, have something to do with the truth of the Church.

That is not the case. It has far more to do with the brain washing. You should see what other ex cult members say about their former captors.

2. To the extent this happens in other religions, I think you would find similar personality types and psychological dynamics at work.

So those who leave religons/cults are somehow mentally impared or disturbed?[/quote]Forums like this are a highly self selected concentrations of ex-Mormons who are, without doubt, unrepresentative of the whole of the ex-Mormon or inactive Mormon world. These are people with special motivations and a special viciousness and animosity that is not representative of the overwhelming majority of the people I've met who are not interested in continuing activity in the Church, and cutting through the underbrush to the real issues isn't an easy task.[/quote]Some peopel want to expose the lies and corruption that they found in a body that was supposed to be "of god". Others, the ones who go quietly I'd say are more ashamed that they fell for it and talking about it just continues to bring up the shame they feel for having been a part of such a lie.

[_Yoda]

As it was, the change from two-and-a-half years to two year missions came during my mission. Officially, we were to have been given the choice to stay for the original calling or leave at the end of just 24 months, but my mission president was bucking to be chosen a General Authority and he lied to us about the option because (as he foolishly confided to one of the elders working in the mission home) he was afraid too many of us going home after 24 months would hurt his chances for ecclesiastical advancement.

James, if you don't mind my asking, how old are you? I was unaware of this time frame for missions. When my husband went, the mission had been shortened from 24 months to 18 months. While he was out, they raised it back to the 24 months. Those missionaries that were out had the option to go home as scheduled or stay. My husband chose to stay. (My husband and I are both 43) Just curious. I was unaware of the longer, 30 month time frame you speak of.

[_Runtu]

Or you really don't know much about Missions, or the Church. And as Harmony symbolizes, you can be in the Church for a long time, go on a mission, and do this and that, and still not know very much about it.

Its not about being a member; its about living the Gospel.

You are too funny, Cogs. Yep, for 40-some years I floated in the margins of the church, never living the gospel, and certainly never understanding it. I suppose that fits the standard believer's narrative of why people leave, doesn't it? ;)

And might I remind you, I was one of those people who really wanted to be out on a mission and who, despite everything, doesn't regret going. Stating the simple truth that a large percentage of missionaries do not want to be there has nothing to do with my understanding of the gospel. But you knew that already.

[_Yoda]

Or you really don't know much about Missions, or the Church. And as Harmony symbolizes, you can be in the Church for a long time, go on a mission, and do this and that, and still not know very much about it.

Its not about being a member; its about living the Gospel.

You are too funny, Cogs. Yep, for 40-some years I floated in the margins of the church, never living the gospel, and certainly never understanding it. I suppose that fits the standard believer's narrative of why people leave, doesn't it? ;)

And might I remind you, I was one of those people who really wanted to be out on a mission and who, despite everything, doesn't regret going. Stating the simple truth that a large percentage of missionaries do not want to be there has nothing to do with my understanding of the gospel. But you knew that already.

I'm still waiting to hear Coggins' answer to the question regarding whether or not he served a mission. If he did not, then I don't see how he can make blanket statements about how others' experiences are supposedly skewed.

Edited to add----Even if he did serve a mission, everyone has a different reference point, so blanket statements are uncalled for...but at least, he would have some type of similar point of reference.

[_harmony]

Li

ke I said, almost every missionary I know concurs: at least half the missionaries are there for the "wrong" reasons and do not want to be there. The idea that these teenagers are making some kind of morally reprehensible choice just reflects charity's not knowing much about missions.

Or you really don't know much about Missions, or the Church. And as Harmony symbolizes, you can be in the Church for a long time, go on a mission, and do this and that, and still not know very much about it.

Its not about being a member; its about living the Gospel.

Harmony never served a mission. harmony was baptized at 18, married and sealed at 19, had her 1st child at 20. No time for a mission there.

[_Yoda]

Li

ke I said, almost every missionary I know concurs: at least half the missionaries are there for the "wrong" reasons and do not want to be there. The idea that these teenagers are making some kind of morally reprehensible choice just reflects charity's not knowing much about missions.

Or you really don't know much about Missions, or the Church. And as Harmony symbolizes, you can be in the Church for a long time, go on a mission, and do this and that, and still not know very much about it.

Its not about being a member; its about living the Gospel.

Harmony never served a mission. harmony was baptized at 18, married and sealed at 19, had her 1st child at 20. No time for a mission there.

Harmony was living the gospel. ;)

[_Jason Bourne]

Don't patronize me, charity. You could not care less if you offend me or anyone else. And for the record, Merc was not blaming everyone else for his problems. He simply said he felt enormous pressure to go on a mission and tried his best to make it work.

We go back a long way. You have no call to make that claim.

And about merc, go back and read his first post. He blamed the Church.

Charity

The LDS Church does have responsibility in this. The pressure for a young man to serve is immense. From the day he is born he hears "I hope they call me on a mission." Often a family starts a missionary fund early on. Dads and moms feel that if a son does not serve they are failures, and yes the church and its culture can foster this. A boy is ordained a deacon at 12. One of the stated purposes of the Aaronic priesthood is to prepare a young man to serve an honorable mission. The young man hears this hundreds of times a year at church. RMs are held up in awe and give youth firesides when they come home. Bishops have annual interviews with young men and the topic of a mission is always brought up. They read New Era articles about serving, girls are told to encourage them to go and even not to marry anyone but an RM, they are constantly prodded by youth leaders to serve, they are asked as priests to go on team ups with missionaries, they attend priesthood conference sessions that usually have talks about serving, they are taught it is a commandment of God and a responsibility for ALL young men to prepare for and serve a mission, they constantly hear about the new RAISE THE BAR and are told all about things that will disqualify them for service, at 18 they are given missionary preparation courses and they are told it will he the best two years of their lives.

Just how the hell can you with a straigh face say the Church has no responsibility in this? Hell the Church makes it their responsibility to produce young men that can and will serve. Bishops, SPs, youth leaders an on and on all are focused on getting boys that will serve. It is tough for a young man to knot go. And if he wants to be active but does not want to go then there is a stigma. Members usually think he did something to disqualify for service.


As a teen I was never planning to serve. Did not want to, had no desire. But boy was the barrage heavy from bishops, YM presidents and ward members and friends. Not from my parents though. They were not active and always said that if wanted to go they would help but were ok if I did not want to go. They said that I should go only if I wanted to go.

When I was 18-19 I had a great job. I moved out on my own for a while but ended up moving back home after 6 months. I still did not want to serve a mission. But all day long I felt guilty about not going. I would think "what if there is someone I am supposed to find and don't go..." I agonized over it. I thought it was god telling me I should go. The guilt I felt was huge. I felt I was being told to go but did not want to. I kept hearing SWK say "Every Young Man shoudl serve a mission."

Then I had what I still believe was a spiritual experience that caused me to change my life around. I had a great desire to give up some worldly things and this experience drove me to do just that. Along with that I had a great desire come upon me to serve a mission. So I went and told my bishop I wanted to go and go I did.

Now I was excited and was happy to serve. But still there was and is huge pressure to go. I am not sure I would have served had it not been there. Maybe you think the pressure was good cause it got me out there. You may be right. Had I continue in the path I was in I am not sure where I would be now.

But it is clear the church is very responsible and had HUGE influence on LDS boys decisions to serve.

[_harmony]

Unfortunately, I have written my serious comment after a joke, so nobody read it.

I repeat (it is about the two years):

...
that age were the better for education. At that age could learn any young man/woman with the biggest efficiency. And that age will be wasted once and for all. Prodigalizing the human resources.

I'm sure the powers that be in the church would say that that's why they send misionaries out at 19... because that's when they're best suited for learning.. and then teaching. Of course, they mean best suited for the church, not for their missionaries. But that's what a mission is all about: what's best for the church, not for the individual missionary.

[_Moniker]

I am jumping in here late... I've been rather busy. I passed out behind the wheel of my car, came to seconds later to pull the car back into my lane, and spent the next day in and out of the emergency room trying to figure out why I passed out while driving. Never got an answer. Hope it's a fluke. What a way to ring in the New Year.

Just saw this.

Trevor, sorry to hear that! I too hope it was just a fluke.