#56568 Didn't go on a mission

[vorpal blade]

I realize that there are a number of reasons a young man may not have served a mission. It could be health problems. It could be worthiness problems. It could be the lack of a testimony. It could be the need to save up some money before going. All kinds of things. And it is not up to us to judge whether that person is a good or bad person. Back in the 60s I almost didn't go because there was a quota of no more than 2 per ward because the government was concerned that young men were going on missions to avoid the draft and fighting in Vietnam.

Yet, I think it is a legitimate question to ask why a young man who is 20 or over has not served a mission, if you are young women considering whether or not to date that young man. The questioner said that he didn't go at first for "musical purposes." Really, I thought musical talent wasn't a requirement for a mission. Okay, I suppose he meant he wanted to pursue a musical career. I hope my daughters don't go out with anyone with such a lame excuse. Actually, since he hadn't been to church regularly since middle school I suspect a lack of testimony was the real reason. Would I want my daughters to date a guy who grew up in the Church but didn't have a testimony? No way. He says he is a good guy, and I suppose we have to take his word for it. But my question to him would be, so why don't you go on a mission now? Assuming he is not over 26 years old.

I don't buy the argument "he didn't feel like it was right for him. He didn't think he was in the right place in his life to be able to put his heart into it." Right, like the rest of us didn't have to struggle with gaining a testimony of going on a mission. It is a young man's duty, and I would worry that such a man might marry my daughter and decide one day that being faithful to her was not right for him at some future time. That he wasn't then at a place in his life to be able to put his heart in it. Good grief. Buck up. Be a man. Take responsibility for your life.

"If the choice to not go on a mission was because of worthiness issues, as long as those have been/are being worked through, I don't see a problem." I do. Part of the repentance process, working through the issue, is to make restitution. So, he made some mistakes, feels sorry for them now, and is now worthy. So now go on a mission. If his mistakes were so serious that they will no longer let him go on a mission, or he waited so long to repent that he is too old to go, then I see a red flag.

Of course, we should all be charitable, forgiving, and non-judgmental. I wouldn't ask someone why he didn't serve a mission. It is none of my business. And I would assume the best. But the question was addressed to the women of the Board about dating someone who chose not to serve a mission. I'm glad to learn of their opinions. I'm just saying that I hope my daughters do ask such questions, because it is their business if the young man is interested in them. And I hope they see through the flimsy excuses for disobeying God.

[krebscout]

I agree. "Musical reasons" are not on my list of valid excuses unless he prayed to receive confirmation that this was a pursuit worthy of forgoing a mission, and it doesn't sound like he did. I dunno. I'd have to know the guy.

My dad didn't serve a mission because he knew that if he didn't marry my mom right then (he was 19. She was 17), she wouldn't be around when he got back. That doesn't sound like a hole-proof excuse, but I'm sure glad he made the choice he did. I'm thinking they'll go on a mission together sometime soon.

[NerdGirl]

Yeah, I don't care if someone is a returned missionary or not if they have a good reason for not going. There are a lot of new converts to the church in my area, and there are a lot of great guys around here who are temple worthy and have really strong testimonies, but didn't find the church until they were to old to go on missions. And I've known some incredible guys who couldn't go on missions because of health problems. My own father didn't join the church until he was 39, so he obviously hasn't been on a mission.

And the fact that someone is a returned missionary doesn't automatically make them someone that I would want to date. It's possible to go on a mission and not have a testimony at all. The important thing to me is that a guy has a strong testimony and is temple worthy. That doesn't mean that I think guys who don't have strong testimonies and aren't temple worthy are bad people, it just means they have different goals and priorities than me. No offense to the guy who asked the question, but the not having gone to church regularly since middle school is a much bigger red flag for me than not having gone on a mission. It does sound like he is becoming more active now, and I'm sure he really is a good guy. But I would probably wait to see how serious he was about going back to church before I got seriously involved with him.

[Dead Cat]

Donny Osmond did not go on a mission.

[Gimgimno]

For the record, Vorpal, the maximum age is now 25. That changed about two years ago. Now you know!

Another modern example of Donny Osmond is David Archuleta. Now, I know everyone in the world isn't fond of the kid, but I have a lot of respect for the young man. He arranged for a fireside to be held when he was visiting where I went on my mission and definitely provided missionary opportunities for the young people in the area because of it. Now, in thinking about this, I think it's a different case because he would have gone on a mission had his music career not taken off, but I think it's worth noting. In his case, he does his missionary work through his personal example and through his interactions with people when he's on tour (and I think he's made a bigger impact than he probably could have as a normal missionary, anyway).

As an excuse from the get-go, though? I don't really buy it either. Does it mean that young ladies shouldn't date him? Absolutely not. I hope they aren't ignoring him. But is it fair that they question what his future decisions might be like based on his choice not to go on a mission? Absolutely.

[NerdGirl]

I think part of the problem here has to do with the way our generation seems to have completely forgotten what dating is supposed to be. Dating is supposed to be about getting to know someone to find out if you would would be interested in a more serious relationship. This guy not having gone on a mission is not a reason to not date him. It may or may not be a reason to not start a relationship with him, but how would you know unless you get to know him and find out what kind of a person he is?

[TheAnswerIs42]

If you want to point out particular people, Thomas S Monson did not serve a full time mission.

That having been said, I really like what NerdGirl said. I would want to find out more before writing off someone that hadn't served a mission. Hence, I might date him (you know, back when I dated), but I would consider things seriously before courting him. I would say that about a lot of vices I saw in potential mates.

But I think vorpal has a point about this particular guy. Obviously we don't get the whole picture from this question, but . . . "musical purposes"? I spent a good minute trying to figure out how that was a typo. And you don't just "not feel like it is right for me" or something. It is a commandment. That would be like me saying that keeping the word of wisdom doesn't feel right for me. For girls like me - sure. In fact, that happened to me. I felt prompted that I didn't need to prepare for a mission. My husband proposed on my 21st birthday. That was my path. But guys? To me, you need to be actually prevented from going. I have a few family members that didn't serve or didn't finish, and I have varying levels of respect for that as I know them well enough to see how legitimate the reason was.

As for David Archuleta . . . I dunno. I'm sure he's doing a lot of good and all, but . . . a lot of athletes with promising careers ahead of them still take the break and go. It's not my life, but . . . hm.

[Unit of Energy]

Being a return missionary has never been a must on my list. My dad had a son and an ex-wife when he was baptized, so mission stories were not something that I had in my family. That being said if I were to marry any of the guys I knew in high school or Freshman year here I wouldn't consider them unless they were returned missionaries. Although since I'm now of an age to go myself, that is no longer an issue. They've almost all come home already. I do know of several fine young men that didn't serve missions for health reasons. And I will admit that I was very grateful that my cousin didn't go until a year after he originally planned. In thinking about it, I do know a young man who didn't go and most likely did stay home for musical reasons. And I would not date or get into a relationship with him, but there are factors other than the mission or lack there of in that decision.

[Marduk]

I think we can offer analogies here. Yes, it is a commandment for all young men physically capable of doing so to serve a mission. Not doing so should draw further questions, in any sort of serious relationship. I would hope in any serious relationship that any fairly serious sins, past or present, would be discussed. I, for example, would want to know if a young lady that I was dating exclusively had had immorality problems in the past. But if they were just that, in the past, and she were now a member in good standing, then it wouldn't present a problem to the continuance of that relationship. I think we could say something here about the strengthening effect of overcoming temptation. Of course, it would be better to never have had the issue, but once full repentance has taken place, we have no right to hold it against anyone.

In that sense, I think we sometimes have "RM" on the must date list, and I find it akin to saying, "has never committed any sin" on the list. It just isn't reasonable, and disqualifies a number of wonderful men, while simultaneously allowing many that aren't worth the nametag they used to wear.

[krebscout]

Though I respect the sentiment of the analogy, I disagree with its details: Kirke's answer in this question (http://theboard.byu.edu/index.php?area=viewall&id=55931) gives a good explanation why.

[Marduk]

Well, given that mindset, wouldn't it follow not to ask whether someone served a mission or not? Wouldn't that be like asking if they'd ever smoked before?

[krebscout]

Right, that's why I'm saying I don't agree with the details as an analogy. But I can drink to letting go of past mistakes fully repented of.

[vorpal blade]

Here are a few thoughts on what has been said here.

Dating is a chance to get to know someone. It is not a commitment to marry them. However, if you know you would never marry a specific person, because of what you already know about them, then I don't think you should date them. People can change, and we need to let them change, but you are taking too great a risk with your life that you might get emotionally involved with someone that you hope will change sometime down the line.

If a person has health issues that prevented them from going on a mission, I would think that the young man has an obligation to sooner or later tell the young lady before she falls in love with him. She has a right to know, because it could affect her future happiness.

We are told that God will remember our sins no more, but we also know that if we repeat a sin God does remember that we are repeating the sin. A child molestor may fully repent of his sins, but he will still never be allowed to work with little children in this life in this Church.

I have a niece who's husband left her. It turns out that some problems he had had before the marriage, and for which he had completely repented, had returned. He had not told my niece of these problems because his bishop had told him that since he had repented he need not confess it again. My niece says that had she known of these prior sins she never would have married him. It seems to me that she has a right to know so that she can make an informed decision. We can all forgive the young man, but it doesn't mean that he no longer has to live with the past.

A young man who is, say, 24 years of age may explain that he did not serve a mission because at the age of 19 he was leading a sinful life, but now he has repented. Okay then, what is stopping him from serving a mission at the age of 24? If he still is choosing not to serve a mission then he is still sinning, and has not yet fully repented. I would advise my daughters not to date a young man who could have served a mission at an older age but chose not to do so. Past sinfully behavior is not an excuse, and the repentance is not complete until he has served the mission.

On occasion God may inspire a young man to not serve a mission. I wouldn't just take his word for it, however, unless I was convinced he was living close to the Lord. More often than not he just doesn't want to submit his will to God, in my opinion. "I can reach more people with my music," or "my athletic talents" sounds pretty hollow to me. Like the guy who doesn't give the Lord his tithing, because he thinks he knows better than the Church how to donate his money to charitable causes. Pretty free with someone else's money. Or time which belongs to the Lord.

[Marduk]

Just one little note to that Vorpal: taking your example of the 24 year old, it is a commandment that worthy 19 year old men serve missions. It is not a commandment that 24 year old men who are now worthy serve missions. Now, many young men who are one or a few years past the age to serve still choose to, and serve well. But it could be very possible that something along the lines of "I should have been worthy and served when I was 19, but I didn't. I am now worthy, but after counsel with my bishop and with the Lord, the time for me to serve has passed, and I will have to make up for my past mistake in other ways." I guess what I'm saying is, serving at 19 is right for everyone physically and morally capable. Serving at 20+ may not be right for everyone physically and morally capable.

[Damasta]

Donny Osmond did not go on a mission.

Donny Osmond is an embarrassment. I was roommates with a close friend of his and after learning more than I ever wanted to about him, I had to conclude that he's a fruitcake. I wish he had gone on a mission, like, say, Shawn Bradley.

[vorpal blade]

Marduk,

I was unable to find any reference in the Church literature to suggest that when a youing man was over 19 he need not consider himself under any obligation to serve a mission. On the contrary I found continual references to young men in general. I found counsel given to bishops to continually work with young men who have reached the age where they could go on missions but were not worthy. The young men were told that they might have to work with their bishop for more than a year before they are ready to serve a mission.

I've attended more than a decade of bishopric training meetings. The counsel I have always heard is to work with the young men and not give up simply because the young men are over 19. These young men continue to show up on the bishop's action list for many years as people they need to continue to interview and call to serve a mission if they are worthy. And work with them until they are worthy. I cannot imagine a bishop counselling the young man to forget about a mission since the young man is now over 19.

Therefore, I'm pretty sure, if a young man says he is worthy to serve a mission, he is only 20 or so, and he says that his bishop agrees with him that he is now so old that the Lord doesn't expect him to serve, then the young man is lying. I guess that sounds pretty harsh, but I think it will be true 99% of the time.

[Marduk]

It isn't an either/or proposition. I would imagine that most bishops still counsel 20 year olds to serve missions. I would imagine that number goes down for 21 year olds, even moreso for 22, 23, and so on. There is a reason the church has an age cutoff, and it isn't so that every man before that age can go, but no man after that age can. My point was that the later it gets, the more other commandments of concern (education, marriage, children) would be unnecessarily post-poned by serving a mission. All things need to be considered, and counsel is given on a case-by-case basis. More important than whether or not a man has served a mission, is whether he holds the priesthood worthily at that given moment.

[vorpal blade]

Marduk,

I think we may be approaching this question from two very different positions. You seem to want to find legitimate excuses for someone who chooses not to serve a mission. My point of view is that there are some exceptions, but they should be few. At present most LDS young men seem to think that they are the exception and do not need to concern themselves with going on a mission. They may indeed feel that they are too old, that the opportunity has passed them by. Or that they were stalled temporally by sin. They may be thinking now about education, marriage, and children. Certainly the Lord and the bishop will give counsel on a case-by-case basis, but not going on a mission should be the rare exception. I'm arguing against the backslider who is just looking for an excuse not to go on a mission. We shouldn't let these exceptions give excuses for the majority who choose not to go on a mission.

Whether you are 19 or 24 a mission is going to take two years out of your life. Two years that you could be using getting an education, pursuing marriage, and having children. At some point--and 25 years old looks like a good point--the time for a mission will pass and the time to finish your education and get married will arrive. But for someone at 21 or even 24 to say that it is more important to get an education than go on a mission has his priorities wrong.

I question whether a man can hold the priesthood worthily who has let sin prevent him from going on a mission, or who thinks going to school is now more important. And I believe any young woman in the Church ought to tell a man who has not gone on a mission, but thinks marriage and children are more important in his life at the moment, and he is not over 25 years old, that she will marry only a returned missionary. Otherwise he is not a worthy priesthood holder, because he is neglecting an important priesthood responsibility.