Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

there's no "now" in that line, bismark.

Wow, I kind of forgot about this thread after I started it - three pages. Wow.

Thanks, Katya, for posting that article (about the President Monson-Archuleta impromptu meeting in the Church Office Building). I guess that as far as we know, then, in that particular meeting, President Monson didn't necessarily look David Archuleta in the eye and say, "GO ON A MISSION."

I feel that each young man (besides, as has been noted, those with health problems or difficulties of other natures that prevent them from serving) has the same obligation to fulfill a full-time mission as they do to fulfill other commandments. So the Prophet doesn't need to sit down with David Archuleta in order for David to know he has to go. General Authorities have been pretty strong on the topic of missions, as well (such as in this talk, where Elder Richards says that "There is not anything a young man can do that will be any more important than serving a full-time mission." (Similarly, in the Aaronic Priesthood manual, it says, "We [young men] cannot escape [the] obligation [to serve a mission] any more than we can be exempt from paying tithing or from keeping any other of the Lord’s commandments.")

I think that there are a lot of young men -- excellent, wonderful people -- who accomplish great good without having served missions. Some of them (as have been mentioned) might be more spiritually mature than some others who have served missions. But serving a mission is still a commandment for young men (I believe President Hinckley or President Kimball used the word "commandment" in regards to missions for young men, though I'm unable to provide a source for that right now, and would love it if someone could). Someone who pays werf's tithing might be morally bankrupt in other areas (perhaps more so than a non-tithe payer), but that doesn't change the fact that tithing is still a commandment, and the Lord expects everyone to obey it.

---
(P.S. BUT! What about wartime? I mean, President Monson didn't serve a mission because of military service. Does the Church have any official statement about that?)

wryness wrote: ---
(P.S. BUT! What about wartime? I mean, President Monson didn't serve a mission because of military service. Does the Church have any official statement about that?)

I would think that it's a case by case basis at best.

The military has special exemption for missions with respect to the draft, so if you can serve a mission instead of immediate service, I would think it's encouraged.

However, I would venture to say that going to fight for our country is about as important as serving a mission assuming it's a just cause.

What about the (perhaps apocryphal) story of President Kimball telling Steve Young that football was his full-time mission?

FauxRaiden wrote:if you can serve a mission instead of immediate service, I would think it's encouraged.

I'd agree with that.

bismark wrote:What about the (perhaps apocryphal) story of President Kimball telling Steve Young that football was his full-time mission?

I found this unsourced essay that refers to a similar episode (though in this case it was Elder Maxwell who said something vaguely-and-not-too-similar to the supposed mandate of President Kimball). So as far as I know there's no substantiated evidence for it (it's kind of like that "everyone will bow to you when they find you lived in the last days" quote that gets attributed to pretty much every General Authority. Maybe).

bismark wrote:What about the (perhaps apocryphal) story of President Kimball telling Steve Young that football was his full-time mission?

I found this unsourced essay that refers to a similar episode (though in this case it was Elder Maxwell who said something vaguely-and-not-too-similar to the supposed mandate of President Kimball). So as far as I know there's no substantiated evidence for it (it's kind of like that "everyone will bow to you when they find you lived in the last days" quote that gets attributed to pretty much every General Authority. Maybe).[/quote]

Sounds like a question for the board...

Nevertheless, Steve Young seems like an interesting example of someone who did not go on a mission for career reasons. Yet now we see him giving CES talks. Any thoughts?

bismark wrote:Yet now we see him giving CES talks. Any thoughts?

We can all repent...

Seriously, though, I'm not 100% sure why. I agree with you; someone should ask this question on the Board. T'would be interesting to learn more about this...

Gimgimno wrote:That isn't to say that he shouldn't go, but he's not pulling a Tal Bachman maneuver or anything.

Funny, since Tal Bachman did go on a mission.

Craig Jessop wrote:Donny Osmond didn't go and look at him, millions know him as a Mormon. A good Mormon. A very good Mormon. I think that living a righteous life in front of millions is better missionary work than any knocked door in Guatemala or Chicago or Australia, though he didn't get the experience—which is what missions are all about when it comes down to it.

Donny Osmond is a moron and I wish he and his sister weren't de facto representatives of the Church. And after watching the video for his Pepsi Smash performance of "Crush", I don't think I like the idea of David Archuleta picking up those reigns, either.

bismark wrote:Nevertheless, Steve Young seems like an interesting example of someone who did not go on a mission for career reasons. Yet now we see him giving CES talks. Any thoughts?

Sounds like priestcraft to me.

bismark wrote:Nevertheless, Steve Young seems like an interesting example of someone who did not go on a mission for career reasons. Yet now we see him giving CES talks. Any thoughts?

It's a poor organization that only lets people who have lived perfect* lives be public role models.

*for some superficial value of perfect

This thread made my day because it made me feel like my old question (http://theboard.byu.edu/index.php?area=viewall&id=51164) was justified--like back then I read the responses and was kind of like yeah, I guess he'll probably just get called to Mongolia and we won't hear about him for 2 years. But now I feel like my question wasn't in vain (it provided background to looking at the argument for me at least) ^.^

Damasta wrote:

Gimgimno wrote:That isn't to say that he shouldn't go, but he's not pulling a Tal Bachman maneuver or anything.

Funny, since Tal Bachman did go on a mission.

I know he did. I was referring to what Tal has done for the image of the Church since he's apostatized. He used to be very outspoken about being a member, and now is very outspoken about being an ex-member--that was my point.

Tal Bachman left the church? Huh. Didn't know that.

Just thought I'd chime in with one more thought on the matter.

This one was actually emailed to me by YSA Gems:

“ ‘For many times you have desired of me to know that which would be of the most worth unto you.’ I suppose many of you young men have asked yourselves that same question. Here is the Lord’s answer: ‘And now, behold, I say unto you, that the thing which will be of the most worth unto you will be to declare repentance unto this people, that you may bring souls unto me, which you may rest with them in the kingdom of my Father’ (D&C 15:6; 16:6).”

Ronald A. Rasband, “The Divine Call of a Missionary,” Ensign, May 2010, 53

Unless someone can find an instance that proves there are exceptions to this rule (e.g. a prophet telling "Famous Person X" that he/she shouldn't serve a mission), I believe that the above scripture applies to all young men, regardless of who they are or what their other options may be.

wryness wrote:.... I believe that the above scripture applies to all young men, regardless of who they are or what their other options may be.

Given the caveat of spiritual, mental, and physical capability, yes. I know that is generally common sense, but it always bears repeating.