#66554 - Sisters and missions

[Katya]

http://theboard.byu.edu/questions/66554/

I strongly, strongly, strongly disagree with No Dice on this matter. He(?) seems to be discounting the entire idea of personal revelation—that God could ever have a more specific path in mind for one of His children than the path that is generally laid out for all of us. I have known several sisters who felt strongly called as individuals to serve missions and I have never known a bishop, branch president, or other leader to categorically discount that personal revelation.

Furthermore, I think that the example of tithing is a poor comparison because tithing is an unusually quantifiable commandment and because we've been specifically directed not to give more than 10% of our increase. (However, a person who felt encouraged to do so could certainly give a very generous fast offering or donate to some other worthy cause in addition to their tithe.)

[bobtheenchantedone]

I just want to say that I related to that question. I always felt vaguely afraid of missionary work, because I was worried that if I thought about it too much I might strongly feel I should go on a mission and I really didn't want to go on a mission. Yes, I realize that that's a terrible way of thinking about things. I also now realize that if I had gone on a mission when I was 21 or soon after... I don't think it would have been a good experience. I can empathize with the girl saying that she needs time to herself - after the week of hanging out with family around Christmas, it was a huge relief to stay in my room for an entire day, seeing no one - and my health and mental problems could have become much worse. As in ending in the hospital. Instead I took a trip to Florida, which in a roundabout way led to me starting my business, and when I got back I started dating Marduk. I feel perfectly happy with where I am now.

As for what you said, Katya, I agree with you. No Dice's answer also rubbed me the wrong way, and for the same reasons you state.

[Whistler]

Hmmm... it's hard to say if the asker felt like "well, maybe _I_ need to go on a mission" or if she felt a spiritual prompting to go on one. I think No Dice was trying to counter feelings of obligation many people have. But I also agree that, for some people, a mission might be exactly what they need to do.

[Katya]

I think No Dice was trying to counter feelings of obligation many people have.

When I turned 21, some people tried to pressure me into going on a mission, more or less because I wasn't married yet, so they figured I didn't have anything better to do. I think that mindset was wrong and I have no problem with No Dice (or anyone else) trying to counteract that pressure.

But No Dice said more or less categorically that no sister could ever be divinely required as an individual to serve a mission, and I disagree with that.

(I also feel like there might be a logic error here. There's a difference between "none of these marbles are black" and "this group of marbles is not all black," because the latter statement still allows for an individual marble in the group to be black. I've always interpreted the statement regarding sisters and missions to be along the latter lines.)

[No Dice]

Katya,

I'm happy to respond to this. I certainly wasn't trying to somehow do away with personal revelation or suggest that personal revelation wasn't real. But here's what President Hinckley said about sisters serving missions:

I wish to say that the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve are united in saying to our young sisters that they are not under obligation to go on missions. (http://www.lds.org/general-conference/1 ... e?lang=eng)

That seems categorical to me. Sisters are under no obligation to serve missions, period. If it were the case that some sisters (but not others) were under an obligation to serve, that is, God had commanded them to serve, I really don't believe that President Hinckley would have put it the way that he did. He might have said, "Carefully seek the Lord's guidance when choosing to serve a mission," or "Many of you are not obligated to serve." But that's not at all what he said.

Now, that doesn't mean God would never encourage or prompt a young woman to serve a mission. I think that very thing happens with almost all sister missionaries, and it should happen with all young elders as well. But if a woman doesn't serve a mission, and then dies and goes to heaven, I can't imagine God saying, "You were supposed to go," when his mouthpiece said that sisters weren't obligated to go.

But I'm happy to hear if I'm interpreting that wrong.

[Marduk]

Let me see if I can clarify the point as I see it.

There are categorical imperatives within the church. These are matters upon which there can be no doubt. Things such as pay a ten percent tithe, sustain your priesthood leaders, abstain from coffee, tea, alcohol and tobacco, serve a full time mission if you are male unless health prevents it, etc. Then there are individual imperatives. These are specific inspirations given to specific individuals at specific times. These might include seemingly mundane activities such as knocking on a particular door, driving down a particular street, going to visit a particular neighbor, or even more life-altering things, such as attending a particular school, accepting a particular job, etc. My understanding is that an otherwise worthy young man refusing to go on a mission would violate the first, whereas a young woman who has been prompted to serve a mission refusing to do so would violate the second. Both have consequences. In many respects the first is under greater condemnation, but I think a woman who ignored inspiration to go would see her life the worse for it.

[No Dice]

I'm not sure that Marduk's parallels (sisters going on a mission is an individual imperative, like going to visit a particular neighbor) work. If the First Presidency had come out and said, "None of you are obligated to visit your neighbors," or "None of you are obligated to take [ ] job," then those would be good parallels.

[Marduk]

But they don't need to, because there isn't a widespread belief that it is the case.

In the talk you linked, President Hinckley specifically said that many were operating under the assumption that it was a categorical imperative, and that is why he had to say what he did. My point is that ignoring spiritual promptings is deleterious in a commensurate measure to the size of the point ignored.

[Katya]

I like Marduk's reasoning, but I also believe that God's plan for an individual can trump what the prophet says, which is a more fundamental philosophical disagreement with No Dice's position. (And it's not one I'm interested in debating, because I don't have the patience or energy for that sort of argument.)

[No Dice]

I also believe that God's plan for an individual can trump what the prophet says

This, clearly, is our disagreement.

In the talk, President Hinckley says, "Again to the sisters I say that you will be as highly respected, you will be considered as being as much in the line of duty, your efforts will be as acceptable to the Lord and to the Church whether you go on a mission or do not go on a mission."

Having the prophet say, from a Conference pulpit, that your efforts will be as acceptable to the Lord and to the Church regardless of whether or not you serve a mission seems to make it pretty clear. You can divide it up into "categorical imperatives" and "individual imperatives" all you want, but I don't think that accurately represents what President Hinckley said, which is that sisters are not commanded to go, period.

Now, if we adopt the position that maybe the prophet is wrong, and that some sisters are commanded of the Lord to go on missions, then yeah, I guess what President Hinckley said in Conference doesn't matter. But no way I'm going there.

[Fredjikrang]

Maybe they aren't commanded to go, but receive and answer to a prayer that they should go? I know of several sister missionaries that went on missions because they received just such an answer.

Was it a commandment? No. Was it an answer from God? I believe so. Are there consequences in ignoring an answer from God? Undeniably yes.

[Tao]

My sister's situation was somewhat similar to the querent's in that she didn't want to go on a mission but felt called to nonetheless. In fact, I think the not wanting to actually helps in the calling. If you really want to go, its harder to know if the call is divine or native. When you really don't want to do something but keep getting called to it? much easier to figure that one out, which in turn empowers the work you do when you do it. (Matt 21:29 comes to mind, note that will here is 'my will' ie. "I don't want to".)

Looking at my reading of the conversation thus far, it seems to me that the idea of obligation needs clarification. President Hinkley's talk seemed to me to be obviating the idea that there is a societal obligation for young women to go. If there is one, it is against the will of God, leave that poor girl alone, Sister Pressurepants. On the other hand, that does not change the fact that God can call whomever he likes and what God has called, that call not you uncalled.

[Katya]

My sister's situation was somewhat similar to the querent's in that she didn't want to go on a mission but felt called to nonetheless. In fact, I think the not wanting to actually helps in the calling. If you really want to go, its harder to know if the call is divine or native. When you really don't want to do something but keep getting called to it? much easier to figure that one out, which in turn empowers the work you do when you do it. (Matt 21:29 comes to mind, note that will here is 'my will' ie. "I don't want to".)

I think I've mentioned before that my best friend was in the same situation: She was the last person you'd ever expect to go on a mission, so when she felt prompted to go, she knew it wasn't just internal motivation. (Not that there's anything wrong with being internally motivated to do something of this nature—we shouldn't have to be commanded in all things—but it is interesting when the Spirit basically encourages you to do a U-turn in some aspect of life.)

[Unit of Energy]

Tao hit it on the head I think. There have been times in my life where I have felt like I maybe should serve a mission. And although I didn't particularly want to, I want to obey the Lord. The interesting thing about my situation was that as soon as I started speaking with the Bishop about a mission, the need for me to go ceased. But I don't doubt the impressions I had that led me to that point, as they helped me in many other ways as well. I don't think that personal revelation trumps prophetic revelations, but I also don't think that it contradicts prophetic revelation.

[Katya]

So, for those of you who say that personal inspiration can never trump prophetic words, how do you make sense of Nephi's prompting to kill Laban? To me, it looks like a pretty clear violation of "thou shalt not murder."

I'm aware that the Jewish law allowed for killing under some circumstances—capital punishment, formal warfare, repelling intruders, etc.—but I don't see how beheading a drunk man who has some of your family's property fits into any of those categories.

[Fredjikrang]

So, for those of you who say that personal inspiration can never trump prophetic words, how do you make sense of Nephi's prompting to kill Laban? To me, it looks like a pretty clear violation of "thou shalt not murder."

That one is actually easy. By the law of Moses (the word of the prophet) he had the right to kill Laban for multiple offenses, meaning that it wasn't murder, but justice. Though obviously that would almost never apply in our time. (Killing, that is.)

[Katya]

So, for those of you who say that personal inspiration can never trump prophetic words, how do you make sense of Nephi's prompting to kill Laban? To me, it looks like a pretty clear violation of "thou shalt not murder."

That one is actually easy. By the law of Moses (the word of the prophet) he had the right to kill Laban for multiple offenses, meaning that it wasn't murder, but justice.

Can you elaborate?

[Gimgimno]

There's been a fair number of papers written about how the Laban story fits with the Law of Retribution as defined in D&C 98. I think it's 98, anyway.

That might be what Fred is referring to.

[Katya]

There's been a fair number of papers written about how the Laban story fits with the Law of Retribution as defined in D&C 98. I think it's 98, anyway.

That might be what Fred is referring to.

That's a modern revelation, though.

[No Dice]

I think Nephi gives his own reasoning pretty well. First of all, his concern isn't that murder was forbidden, but that "Never at any time have I shed the blood of man." But then he thinks, "Yea, and I also knew that he had sought to take away mine own life; yea, and he would not hearken unto the commandments of the Lord; and he also had taken away our property" (1 Nephi 4:10-11). His reasoning seems clear: Laban had robbed them and tried to kill them. That's why he was deserving of death. Additionally, he was a non-believer (or at least failed to follow the commandments), and the Old Testament is replete with examples of the Israelites killing non-believers. I honestly don't believe that this story would have been out of the ordinary then.

But, like Gimgimno alludes, there's still lots of scholarship on this. FAIR has a good article on it: http://en.fairmormon.org/Legal_codes_in ... _vs._Laban. The Maxwell Institute also has a few things, including a long article by Jack Welch on the legal end of it.

And even if you don't buy into any of that, I hardly think that the lesson we should glean from that story is that any prophetic revelation can be precluded by our own personal revelation. I mean, wouldn't that sort of defeat the point of prophets?

I think the reason that President Hinckley said the things he did is clear: sisters were feeling like they were commanded to go on missions. I don't think the issue was some societal obligation--otherwise, he wouldn't have promised the "line of duty" and "acceptable to the Lord" stuff. This goes beyond culture. And I don't think you should be able to sit back and think, "Well, what he said doesn't apply to me." I think those sorts of attitudes were precisely what President Hinckley was trying to address.