Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

Craig Jessop wrote:selfish reasons

And here is where we cannot judge. Who but God can judge his intent? I agree with you in general, but let's not jump to any conclusions about the kid (or suggest that we may be jumping to conclusions, as the case may be). He, to date, has only been a positive face for the Church in the world.

And amen to everything Vorpal said about making a decision to go on a mission.

Gimgimno wrote:

Craig Jessop wrote:selfish reasons

And here is where we cannot judge. Who but God can judge his intent? I agree with you in general, but let's not jump to any conclusions about the kid (or suggest that we may be jumping to conclusions, as the case may be). He, to date, has only been a positive face for the Church in the world.

And amen to everything Vorpal said about making a decision to go on a mission.

I wasn't talking about David Archuleta, I was talking about people in general. And I do agree with what Vorpal said.

Don't agree with Vorpal. It goes to his head.

Look, putting it off for a year or two does not mean not going. He's obviously not a bad kid. Why is it so wrong for him to not go immediately at 19? He can still have the same experience whether he goes at 19 or 24. It's not as though the mission will be all that different.

FauxRaiden wrote:Look, putting it off for a year or two does not mean not going. He's obviously not a bad kid. Why is it so wrong for him to not go immediately at 19? He can still have the same experience whether he goes at 19 or 24. It's not as though the mission will be all that different.

You really have so little hope for his music career that you think it would make more sense for him to go at 24 than at 19? I think he'll have to make the same decision at 24, and it will only be harder.

The way I see it, his position is no different than anyone else's. He should go if he feels that is right. Lots of people give up lucrative offers and promising careers to go on a mission, he's just in the limelight more than others. But, I also don't believe that a mission is the right thing for every 19 year old to do. Based on my mission experience, I'd much have preferred that some of the missionaries had decided to stay home. The bottom line is that it's a personal decision to serve or not, and there are many factors to take into account. For instance, I don't know the intricacies of the recording industry, but I'd imagine he'll have to get out of a contract with whatever label he's on, and he'll have to let his manager and road team know that they'll be out of work for two years. I'm not sure how that all works. And if he serves stateside, there'd definitely be a problem with fans recognizing him. Possibly internationally as well. A suit can't hide that charming baby face of his.

Marduk wrote:Don't agree with Vorpal. It goes to his head.

Katya wrote:

wired wrote:

FauxRaiden wrote:I personally think we put too much pressure on people to serve a mission anyway. If he wants to go, let him do it in his own time. Nothing wrong with putting it off for a couple of years.

For the record, I disagree with you. Some people put the wrong type of pressure on people to go, i.e. societal pressure, but "pressure" should be put on someone to serve a mission just as "pressure" should be put on someone to follow the commandments.

So what would you consider an example of the right kind of pressure? (Or "pressure"?)

A bishop calling a young man in to ask him if he's fasted and/or prayed about submitting mission papers and requesting that he do so.

wired wrote:

Katya wrote:So what would you consider an example of the right kind of pressure? (Or "pressure"?)

A bishop calling a young man in to ask him if he's fasted and/or prayed about submitting mission papers and requesting that he do so.

And what if he says he doesn't want to or decides not to go for other reasons?

vorpal blade wrote:

Marduk wrote:Don't agree with Vorpal. It goes to his head.

Haha, /hug

You know I love ya man.

Katya wrote:

wired wrote:

Katya wrote:So what would you consider an example of the right kind of pressure? (Or "pressure"?)

A bishop calling a young man in to ask him if he's fasted and/or prayed about submitting mission papers and requesting that he do so.

And what if he says he doesn't want to or decides not to go for other reasons?

Real answer: As the Bishop, I'd probably pray about what to do with the young man and trust the Lord to give me the appropriate response based on that young man and his situation.

Hypothetical answer: Assuming I am left up to my own decision and God doesn't have direction for me one way or the other...

If he says he doesn't want to fast or pray about it, I'd let him know that was disappointing and that he was missing out on the most important opportunity he has had in his life to that point.

If he says he's fasted/prayed about it, and he doesn't want to go, I'd ask him if it's a matter of him not wanting to go or if he was earnestly open to an answer from the Lord and that was the answer he received. If he told me that was the answer he received, I would ask him why he thinks the Lord gave him that answer. I would let him know he would be accountable for that answer and that if it was truly from the Lord, he'd be fine. If it was his own laziness, he would have to explain himself to the Lord some day.

Throughout both of these scenarios, I would emphasize that it is something he ultimately has to decide for himself, but that there is typically a right answer - go on a mission. If he can't decide to do it willingly or thinks he will be a hindrance to others, I would tell him to figure out what he needs to do to go willing or prevent himself from being a hindrance, and then go. I would tell him not to go if he thinks he can't get over it before submitting his papers.

None of this response would be applicable to (a) David Archuleta, (b) young men with serious transgressions in their past, (c) young men with disabilities. This is for the average, slacker young man who just wants to continue playing around in college and hasn't put the effort in to determine that God really does want him to go on a mission. I recognize that even then there will be exceptions - that's what revelation is for. But prophets have pretty plainly stated that every young man should do everything in his power to serve a mission. The ones who don't want to out of selfish reasons should be admonished by appropriate priesthood leaders to repent and reconsider. If the young man can't sincerely do those things, don't let him go.

Another clarifying point: there are great young men who choose not serve a mission (erroneously) and there are crappy young men who serve a mission. That doesn't detract from the fact that the Lord clearly wants young men to serve a mission right now. That hasn't always been the case and it may not be the case in the future, but until the Lord prompts a prophet to change that policy, I don't see what advantage we give a young man by simply saying, "Do what you want to do." Rather, we should say, "Do what you ought to do, and do it for the right reason."

I agree wholeheartedly with what wired said but with this stipulation: pressure needs to be put on those kids that know what they ought to do but are lazy. I don't know anybody who could have gone on a mission but didn't because of laziness that has a better life because of it. Not one.

Yes, some say that there are kids who shouldn't go on missions because they are worthless when they get out. I must disagree. Obviously I'm not going to say that there aren't worthless missionaries out there, but when I think about it, I can only think of a handful of the 200 in my mission who shouldn't have come. There were plenty who people would have looked at in their past lives and said so, but when they got to the field a kind president, patient companions, and the intense presence of the Spirit CHANGED them. They aren't who they once were in their attitudes or desires. THAT's why I feel so passionate about every young man on a mission. It changes lives and it's 99% of the time for the better; only those who stubbornly don't want to change or are to lazy to change don't.

thank you, wired and Craig, for those very well-put posts.

Yarjka wrote:

FauxRaiden wrote:Look, putting it off for a year or two does not mean not going. He's obviously not a bad kid. Why is it so wrong for him to not go immediately at 19? He can still have the same experience whether he goes at 19 or 24. It's not as though the mission will be all that different.

You really have so little hope for his music career that you think it would make more sense for him to go at 24 than at 19? I think he'll have to make the same decision at 24, and it will only be harder.

The way I see it, his position is no different than anyone else's. He should go if he feels that is right. Lots of people give up lucrative offers and promising careers to go on a mission, he's just in the limelight more than others. But, I also don't believe that a mission is the right thing for every 19 year old to do. Based on my mission experience, I'd much have preferred that some of the missionaries had decided to stay home. The bottom line is that it's a personal decision to serve or not, and there are many factors to take into account. For instance, I don't know the intricacies of the recording industry, but I'd imagine he'll have to get out of a contract with whatever label he's on, and he'll have to let his manager and road team know that they'll be out of work for two years. I'm not sure how that all works. And if he serves stateside, there'd definitely be a problem with fans recognizing him. Possibly internationally as well. A suit can't hide that charming baby face of his.

If you ask me, I don't think he would have a career when he comes back. At least, not a very good one. American Idol winners are only in the spotlight until the next year when another person wins. I can't think of any past Idol winners that are still in the here and now. I say let him follow his dream and put off the mission for a couple of years. I just don't see the problem with that.

FauxRaiden wrote: If you ask me, I don't think he would have a career when he comes back. At least, not a very good one. American Idol winners are only in the spotlight until the next year when another person wins. I can't think of any past Idol winners that are still in the here and now. I say let him follow his dream and put off the mission for a couple of years. I just don't see the problem with that.

Ok, this might not really be here or there, as I agree, if he isn't producing for over 2 years, he probably wouldn't have much of a career to come back to, but there are tons of American Idol winners who are still out there producing music. Chris Daughtry, Jordin Sparks, Kelly Clarkson, Clay Aiken, and Carrie Underwood all come to mind. Most of the winners actually ARE still around.

They're still around, but most of them peaked shortly after their stint on Idol. As time passes, people care less and less about them.

thebigcheese wrote:They're still around, but most of them peaked shortly after their stint on Idol. As time passes, people care less and less about them.

That's exactly what I mean. Part of the problem is there are so many now that I couldn't care less about who wins. None of them are ground breakingly unique. They get their time in the spotlight and then resigned into obscurity. That's why I say let this kid have a year or two in the limelight and then he can do the mish.

As for Marduk, they're still producing music but as has been said, they're not really popular anymore. You rarely ever hear any of Kelly Clarkson's, Clay Aikens, etc. music on the radio anymore. I think the only one that still plays is Carrie Underwood to my knowledge. Then again I can't remember any of the Idol winners and when they won.

Actually, I hear Kelly Clarkson and Chris Daughtry all the time.

Anybody remember Justin Guarini? Or the movie he made with Kelly Clarkson? Hahaha...

shut up. i totally loved that stupid movie.

i just went to kelly clarkson's most recent concert last december. they play her music on the radio a LOT. but out of all the idol contestants in history, she, daughtry, and carrie underwood are the only ones i'd say are superstars and have staying power. so david archuleta probably should take advantage of his fame now, because it'll probably be gone in a year or two.

SINCE YOU'VE BEEN GONE, I CAN BREATHE FOR THE FIRST TIME!!!!