#66554 - Sisters and missions

[Fredjikrang]

Thanks for the support guys! Saved me tonnes of time. ;D I had thought of a different, but didn't think that it really applied to this case, as Nefi did not go to the law first. (Can't remember exactly where that one is.)

So, No Dice, I have a question about definitions. Is a spiritual impression that you should do something the same thing as a commandment in your opinion?

[Marduk]

What about Abraham being commanded to slay Isaac? Or that one doesn't count since he is a prophet?

Also, No Dice, not to put to fine a point on it, but I think that it was more directed at leaders who were trying to get the women to go out, not as much at the women themselves.

[No Dice]

Fredjikrang,

I think that's a really interesting question. I think they're usually the same. If the Lord gives you a prompting via the Spirit, and you don't obey it, that's probably sin (the Holy Ghost is a member of the Godhead, after all).

Now, frequently, the consequences of disobeying promptings are just the lack of blessings or some temporal loss as opposed to real spiritual suffering. Hypothetical: I have a big test tomorrow. I feel prompted to set two alarms. I only set one. It doesn't go off. I miss my test. I don't think God in heaven is going to punish me by withdrawing the Spirit, since the obvious consequence of that was temporal.

Now, are there exceptions to this? I think that we can say there's an exception to this rule (that impressions = commandments, generally) when the scriptures or modern-day prophets specifically delineate a commandment. I still think tithing is a good example. Because we've been given tithing clearly in scripture and modern-day revelation, I just don't think the Lord would ever require anyone to pay more than 10%. He might require other things of them . . . but he wouldn't change tithing. I don't think God wants us second-guessing commandments based on personal revelation, ever.

I think this sisters on missions things is similar. I don't think the Lord would ever command, or require, a sister to serve, because he's said through his servants that he won't. At least, that's how I interpret President Hinckley's words, which I find pretty straightforward.

Now, as I said before, I think the Lord frequently prompts and encourages young women to serve. But I believe that God is bound by his word, and by impressing President Hinckley to say what he did, the Lord communicated to us that even though a mission may be a good choice for sisters (and a choice that he encourages them to make), choosing not to serve a mission will never be sinful. He won't withhold blessings from sisters, on balance, if they choose not to serve. He won't divinely require them to go.

That was a long answer. But I guess my answer to your question is "Usually, but when the scriptures/modern-day prophets define a commandment categorically, personal revelation doesn't change that. Personal revelation is for strengthening our testimonies and guiding us in the matters where the map isn't as clear."

Also, Marduk, I disagree. President Hinckley says that he said in priesthood session because "I do not know where else to say it." Certainly there was direction there for leaders, but I think that was direction was to help leaders who were dealing with young women who felt guilty because they weren't going on missions. And there was no reason to feel guilty, cause it's not a sin. And he starts that second bit by saying "Again to the sisters I say." I'm skeptical that he was simply being obtuse and actually speaking to leaders; that doesn't seem like President Hinckley at all.

[Marduk]

You're right, that doesn't, and that certainly wasn't what I was saying. That's a willful misinterpretation of what I said.

But this is a point of little consequence, so I don't really feel like arguing it further.

[Fredjikrang]

Thanks for explaining your ideas No Dice! I think I am getting a better picture of what you think. I'm not quite sure where I stand still. I do believe that God can encourage women to go on missions, but don't know what that means exactly.

I do have another question for the MB in general though. What place to patriarchal blessings have in this? For instance, I know of several sisters that have read in their patriarchal blessings that they would go on a mission/missions. Now, obviously this doesn't mean as a single person necessarily, but what do you all think?

[Dragon Lady]

I do have another question for the MB in general though. What place to patriarchal blessings have in this? For instance, I know of several sisters that have read in their patriarchal blessings that they would go on a mission/missions. Now, obviously this doesn't mean as a single person necessarily, but what do you all think?

This isn't what you're hoping for, but I'm gonna say it anyway. It's personal. Each of those girls will have it fulfilled in potentially different ways. Some will serve as single sisters, some as part of a couple missionary, some as senior sisters, some as talking to non-members they know. There is no single answer that'll fit all of them.

[Tao]

Because we've been given tithing clearly in scripture and modern-day revelation, I just don't think the Lord would ever require anyone to pay more than 10%. He might require other things of them . . . but he wouldn't change tithing. I don't think God wants us second-guessing commandments based on personal revelation, ever.

Heh, tithing may have been an interesting choice here. The commandment is 10% and I think that at some point in our lives we come to realize that the requirement is 100%, once we've attuned ourselves enough. And really the only time we'll know we've reached that point is via personal revelation. Such things can not ever come out in general conference as general conference is, by definition, general.

While No Dice is quite right in stating that looking at a commandment and saying "that doesn't apply to me" is a dangerous practice, I can't say I agree with what I read as their thesis here: that God can't give a commandment to one that runs against the advice given to the many. The showbread is a good example: the general commandment was that it was to be consumed only by priests in the tabernacle, and yet David and his followers were allowed to take some with them in their time of need. This doesn't invalidate the general command, but it shows that individual circumstances can come into play.

And that was when the general and individual flatly contradicted each other. Such is not the case here. The general command is that sisters are not obligated to go on full-time missions. There is and should be no sense of obligation for a sister to go, or even stay for the full 18 months once called. But the lack of a blanket obligation as lays upon the young men of the church does not obviate God's capacity to call whomever he sees fit. Such callings can be nothing but intensely personal, and no-one other than the individual in question and God himself have any say in the matter, as President Hinkley reaffirmed in his talks on the matter.

[Unit of Energy]

When I was/still am deciding what to do with my life and if a mission plays into this I was talking with my mom. And when she was my age, she felt very strongly that she should serve a mission. And she didn't, and the next 18 months of her life were the hardest she'd ever had. Granted, we don't know what would have happened had she served, but she told me that it took a long time for her to feel that she'd made up for that decision not to go.

[Dragon Lady]

Or there's my cousin who was seriously dating a guy for a long time, but he just never would take the leap and propose. One day she was praying and felt VERY strongly that she needed to go on a mission. Which was far from what she wanted to do. She wanted to stay home and get married to this guy. But she couldn't deny how strong the prompting was. So in tears she told her parents and her boyfriend that she was going to go and they all supported her. The day before she left the MTC the boyfriend called the dad, her bishop, stake president and then the MTC president who handed the phone over to my cousin because that month they were apart was enough to make him realize that he needed her and that his stalling wasn't doing anyone any good and that he really just wanted to marry her. So he proposed over the phone. And she said yes and instead of flying to her mission, she drove the 15 mins or so home. (Or, more likely, her parents drove her home.) They got married and are happily married today, probably some 10-15 years later. (I don't actually have their wedding date memorized.)

I'll let you all draw your own conclusions as to what that means in terms of this conversation.

[Katya]

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.

This isn't my position and I don't appreciate your reducing my argument to a straw (wo)man. When I said I didn't want to debate the point, it was because I saw your "all or nothing" mindset as evidence that you would have difficulty seeing the nuance in someone else's point of view. I'm happy to be proven wrong, but I don't have the patience or energy to argue with a brick wall who can't or won't see something from another person's perspective.

[Katya]

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?

No, it doesn't. Like I said, you're not even trying to see my perspective. You're reducing it to either "Everything prophets say goes, no matter what" or "Nothing prophets say goes, no matter what."

[Gimgimno]

I think the point that's trying to be made is that a sister not serving a mission will never be a sin of commission. I don't think that God's encouragement for a sister to serve could ever be, in normal circumstances, considered a "commandment." I think Unit's anecdote about her mom has relevance, though—I definitely think that God encourages some sisters to serve and blesses them for their sacrifices and willingness to follow through on spiritual promptings. I think that if they ignored those promptings, though, that their "sin" would only be that of omission; there would be unrealized blessings, but God wouldn't withdraw the Spirit and there would be no punishment, if we're using that word.

It's like a patriarchal blessing. Many of us are given specific counsel in our blessings that we can choose to follow or not. If we choose not to follow it, I personally don't think that God punishes us for it, even though a patriarchal blessing with counsel could be considered personal commandment. However, I do think that there are blessings passed upon as a result of discounting the instructions we were given. I think that's a fair comparison about what I think (and what I think almost everyone in here thinks, but that no one has adequately expressed up to this point).

[No Dice]

Look, all, I should apologize. I certainly didn't want to rankle anyone, or suggest that the personal revelation they (or their friends, or relatives, or whoever) received was wrong. I was surprised that my answer rubbed people the wrong way: I thought I was expressing the clear meaning of President Hinckley's talk (I really should have at least linked to it in the answer; that was a serious mistake on my part.). I'm sure there are other, equally good ways of interpreting his words; perhaps I'm missing some nuance of his. When he says that sisters' efforts are going to be acceptable to God regardless of missions, I'm inclined to think he means all sisters. But I think Tao is very right--it's certainly not my place to say who God will or won't call, even if I can expect to receive guidance from the leaders of the Church on what I can generally expect God to do or not do.

@Katya, I apologize that I boiled your point down to two extremes. My point was simply that if we believe that the prophet's words (if we assume they were directed to all; again, this may not have been the case) don't directly apply to us in one situation, that that may be a slippery slope for other situations. Obviously, portraying the end of that possible slippery slope was unfair and caricatured the point you were making, and I apologize for that.

I stand by my broader point: I think that, taken at face value, President Hinckley's message is that whether or not any sister serves, her efforts are acceptable to God. This really suggests to me that God won't require a sister to serve, or punish her if she chooses not to. Maybe Gimgimno's commission/omission comment is a good way of evaluating that; I still think declaring it a sin of omission is too strong, but it's really semantics at that point.

Again, apologies to any I might have offended. In hindsight, I should have just included the relevant text from President Hinckley's talk and left it at that.

And with that, I will bow out. Cheers to all.

[Marduk]

I recognize the distinction, gumby, (oh, hi by the way! Long time no see.) and I do think it applies in this situation. However, the reason I didn't make it is I think it a superficial one. Let me try to explain why.

When we sin by doing things we shouldn't, we pull ourselves away from the spirit's guidance. Our ability to change and grow into more Christlike beings is curtailed until we repent of the sin. After our repentance process, we find ourselves in a lesser spiritual position than we might have been at that point had we not chosen poorly.

When we sin by not doing things we should, we lessen our ability to understand the spirit's guidance. Our ability to change and grow into more Christlike beings is curtailed until we learn to be more obedient to promptings. After our repentance process, we have to work hard to regain the ability we once had to feel the spirit's guidance that we would've had had we not chosen poorly.

[Marduk]

And No Dice, we may get offended, but we get over it rather quickly. Whatever else may happen it is good to get other opinions into the discussion. Hope to see more of you soon.

[Gimgimno]

Oh—I realize it's not nearly as cut-and-dry as most circumstances that we'd pull the commission/omission thing. Frankly, I generally tire of people throwing those terms around unnecessarily. However, I don't think that someone who feels impressed to serve who chooses not to needs to fast and pray for forgiveness for their decisions because not choosing to serve isn't a damning, terrible, unforgivable sin. They may need to fast and pray to have experiences that "make up" for the experiences they passed on, but when Judgment happens, I don't think that choice is going to go in the naughty pile of life decisions.

If a person feels impressed to bear their testimony during fast and testimony meeting but shakes off the feeling, are they going to be punished for stepping on the impression? I don't think so. Souls who needed to be benefitted may not be benefitted, and the blessings of bearing witness won't be realized, but that person won't be punished. They might be desensitizing themselves to spiritual impressions, too, but they won't be punished.

In the end, I think we're all just talking around this difference between being punished and foregoing blessings. I don't think sisters who choose not to serve will ever be punished. Then again, I think it's strong to say that elders who choose not to serve are punished, but I'll choose to ignore that just because I don't want to try to reason that out.

[TheHaters]

We may get offended, but we get over it rather quickly.

I think this will be my mantra from now on.

[Marduk]

That's just the thing; we aren't punished (in this life) for our sins. It is all about where we are spiritually. And in this respect, both situations are equal. They temporarily damn us.

[Whistler]

wait, what? I thought with some sins you got punished right away? Like if I sin with gluttony, my punishment is a stomachache. Does this mean that even if I suffer the punishment here, I still have to ask forgiveness for something I did to myself?

[Fredjikrang]

I think so.

After all, in my opinion all sins are things we do to ourselves and against God, in my opinion, with some of them also affecting others. Just think of the steps of repentance:

Recognize that it was wrong.
Ask forgiveness to those affected and make restitution
Stop doing it

(Yes, dumbed down version.) Any and all sins offend God, and so you should always have to ask forgiveness for it, I think.