Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

I really don't know that much about David Archuleta (he was pretty popular before I went on my mission, but I think his fame grew somewhat during it), but I think it'll be a shame if he doesn't go on a mission, especially as President Monson met with him and specifically encouraged him to serve a full-time mission.

Well, that's what my mom, said, anyway -- has anyone else heard that, about a Monson-Archuleta meeting? Do you have access to a news source that would confirm that (specifically the "I urge you to serve a full-time mission" part)?

Just wondering.

I haven't ever heard about a specific meeting. I'm fairly certain that if President Monson told him to go that explicitly, though, that he would submit his papers within a fortnight.

I sort of side with him for the moment, though--he's doing much more for the image of the Church by singing and writing critically acclaimed memoirs right now. I wouldn't be surprised if he went eventually, but he's doing great things on his own right now. That isn't to say that he shouldn't go, but he's not pulling a Tal Bachman maneuver or anything.

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.

I think David Archuleta could do the same thing, though I'm not exactly sure how his popularity could compare to Donny's at the same age. Who knows?

And if Pres. Monson really sat down with David Archuleta and told him to go on a mission, who would be a witness to it? The Church wouldn't publish that meeting, and nothing has come up on the Archuleta website, so any source that says it happened has to be considered an unreliable -- if well-intentioned -- source.

I'm kind of inclined to think he shouldn't go. He's famous enough that there could be some pretty major security concerns. He probably has to worry about the paparazzi when he goes out. And like the Osmonds, someone in his situation could probably be a much more effective missionary just by continuing with his career and promoting the church through his example rather than going on a traditional mission. And I would bet that any alleged meeting with President Monson is just an internet rumor.

NerdGirl wrote:And I would bet that any alleged meeting with President Monson is just an internet rumor.

The Deseret News begs to differ.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7052 ... visit.html

(It does sound like the meeting was pretty impromptu, though, and rather lacking in stern admonitions about serving a mission, one way or the other.)

NerdGirl wrote:He's famous enough that there could be some pretty major security concerns. He probably has to worry about the paparazzi when he goes out.

This is an interesting point, and it kind of remind me about Horatio speculating in Board Question #36542 about the logistics of a Mormon serving as president of the United States.

If I asked a man where he had served a mission, and he told me that he was so popular that he knew he could do more good for the Church by using his popularity than he could by submitting to the rigors of a mission, I would think that it is neither his decision to make, nor my place to judge him on this. But it does put me in mind of the Sunday School lesson today where Saul thought he could excuse himself from obeying the Lord by saying they were going to offer the animals up as a sacrifice.

I did see an American Idol celebrity just getting off a plane in Orlando, and I overheard a few whispers about him. There were no photographers or reporters in evidence, and no security, but he was well known. I had at least heard of him, but until I started reading this thread I had no idea who David Archuleta was. I wonder just how popular he is, and who would recognize him dressed as a missionary.

vorpal blade wrote: I would think that it is neither his decision to make, nor my place to judge him on this.

This is basically what I feel as well.

vorpal blade wrote:I wonder just how popular he is, and who would recognize him dressed as a missionary.

Yes. Especially outside of the States. White people all look the same, right?

He's not white I don't think.

Oops. How about "people of other races all look the same"?

You could also go with "Elders in identical short-sleeved white shirts and matching ties all look the same."

I think 19-year-old elders qualify as their own species, never mind their own race.

ahem. wrote:I think 19-year-old elders qualify as their own species, never mind their own race.

Fact. That's why when elders reproduce with humans of a similar age the offspring never seem to be normal.

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.

Oh, so I talked to someone who was there during the whole visit between President Monson and David Archuleta, and there was definitely never any mention of full-time missions.

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.

As for putting it off, that's a personal decision, but outside of finances and worthiness, I personally see no reason why someone should put off a mission.

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.

As for putting it off, that's a personal decision, but outside of finances and worthiness, I personally see no reason why someone should put off a mission.

That's what I mean by pressure, and I know a lot of people disagree with me about it. I just think far too often people end up going for the wrong reasons and getting a lesser experience out of it. It's not that people just outright say "Why aren't you on a mission?" (Which they do) it's just that everyone expects every 19 year old to be on a mission.

In any case, going by 19 is not a rule by any means. The reason we're encouraged to go at 19 is because we aren't heavily involved in school or work, so it's the easiest time to go. If he needs to have a couple of years to realize his dream, I say let him. He's got until 25 before the deadline.

Bishops have a responsibility to interview every young man who is of mission age and has not yet served a mission. It all depends on what is said in that interview, which is confidential. The bishop may urge the young man to go on a mission, and if the young man says he doesn't want to go, at least not yet, then the young man must bear the responsibility of having turned down the Lord, or postponed doing what the Lord wants him to do. He may find that he intended to serve a mission later, but things happen that prevent it.

The bishop may agree with the young man if there is a good reason for not going on the mission at that time. In which case the young man is relieved of the responsibility of serving at that time.

Since we don't know exactly what goes on in any particular interview we have to suspend judgement. Only the bishop, the Lord, and the young man will know the truth, unless the young man wants to share his version of the interview.

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"?)

My mission was the best experience of my life and I wouldn't trade it for any amount of money, any amount of fame, or any amount of social or educational experience the world could offer. Of course there's pressure to go! Those that postpone it most of the time don't understand what they're missing. They may think they do but they don't. So, yes, while there might be people out there who pressure for social reasons, the vast majority of RMs out there ask those annoying questions because a mission is an experience so worthwhile, so life changing, and so sacred they can't bear the thought of one missing out on it. The longer it is postponed the greater the chance is it will be put off permanently, which is an eternity altering mistake. Oh sure a mission isn't a qualification of the Celestial Kingdom, you're right -- but think about it. A refusal to serve for selfish reasons indicates a lack of commitment to the Lord, which, by the way, IS a requirement for exaltation.