Non-RM stigma

Originally Posted by guitarwizard

Young men should be prepared to serve a mission. If something happens and they are found incapable of going (be it a life predicament or that they do not have a firm grasp of the gospel, OR the only reason to go is that there parents will buy them a car) they should not be looked down upon. That is like looking at someone who judged themselves not worthy to take the sacrament and coming up to them after church, in the middle of their repentance process, and bullying them about their lack of reverence for the Saviour.

That is my opinion.

I agree also. However, in some of the previous posts, someone complained about girls not interested in dating any such young man, who didn't serve a mission for the reasons you say, except for anything beyond the young man's control.

I wouldn't advise my daughter to marry someone who only went for the new car, or doesn't have a firm grasp of the gospel, etc. These reasons denote weak testimonies. I wouldn't recommend risking marriage with him. Her future children deserve and need a dad with a strong testimony.

There are always exceptions. In those cases the Spirit would be needed to give a strong witness in decisions as to whether or not to go, or to marry a man who chose not to go.

[Vort]

Marriage is such an individual choice and is predicated on so many silly things, so what's the matter with "RM" being on the list? Heck, most guys date and marry women they find attractive. How high does "pretty" rank on the list? Pretty high (forgive the pun).

• Would you date and marry someone with AIDS? Would it make a difference if s/he got AIDS from an infected needle that poked him/her while working to save a junkie's life?
• Would you date and marry someone you knew to be mentally or emotionally unstable, even if you also knew it wasn't his or her "fault"?
• Would you date and marry someone with chronically, incurably bad breath caused by body chemistry issues?
• Would you date and marry someone who was four feet tall?
• Would you date and marry someone who was too shy to talk with you or ever be alone with you?

These are arguably much less immediate and relevant reasons than "not being an RM" for refusing to date or marry someone, yet most of us would act in some, many, or all of the ways portrayed. So to me, it seems nonsensical to understand and accept the actions listed above, but then condemn a girl for insisting that she will only date RMs.

[Maureen]

Vort:

Would you date and marry someone with AIDS? Would it make a difference if s/he got AIDS from an infected needle that poked him/her while working to save a junkie's life? Would you date and marry someone you knew to be mentally or emotionally unstable, even if you also knew it wasn't his or her "fault"? Would you date and marry someone with chronically, incurably bad breath caused by body chemistry issues? Would you date and marry someone who was four feet tall? Would you date and marry someone who was too shy to talk with you or ever be alone with you?

Therefore you equate someone who is NOT a Returned Missionary with someone who has mental and physical problems, including growth hormone deficiencies and social disabilities?

[Vort]

Originally Posted by Maureen

Vort:Therefore you equate someone who is NOT a Returned Missionary with someone who has mental and physical problems, including growth hormone deficiencies and social disabilities?

The statement was made that young women should not disqualify a man from dating consideration just because he was unable to serve a mission. I was simply pointing out that young women routinely disqualify men from their dating pool for all sorts of reasons beyond the man's control, so why should being an RM be any different?

[miztrniceguy]

Originally Posted by checkerboy

I am gonna call hogwash on this.

yeah...call for references.

[Moksha]

Originally Posted by Vort

I was simply pointing out that young women routinely disqualify men from their dating pool for all sorts of reasons beyond the man's control, so why should being an RM be any different?

Besides, there is always the consideration that this non-RM condition could be passed on to the next generation through a dominent gene combination.

[BenRaines]

Vort,

I like you have done all those things since I joined the church at 16. Makes me wonder if I am a failure by other's standards. Good thing I am not by mine and the Lord's, since those are the only ones that matter.

Ben Raines

[bmy-]

Originally Posted by Islander

I am also a convert but I joined too late to have served a mission. I suspect that you already made up your mind that you do not desire to serve a mission and, of course, that is your prerogative. But I join the statement above that ALL worthy males should heed the call of the Priesthood of God to serve their Heavenly Father in spreading the Gospel and bring others to His kingdom. As you are a new convert is likely that you do not understand the doctrine and significance of serving a mission. ALL of the apostles and prophets of this dispensations have served missions and most returned to school to have very successful carriers and professional lives. You would not be throwing away anything but gaining a testimony, spiritual strength, experience and faith that you now lack and that otherwise will never gain. In a decade as a member I have been able to see that it makes a universe of difference between those that serve a mission and those that don't, even among siblings in the same family.

As stated before.. Pres. Monson never went on his mission. I agree I likely would gain more spiritual strength and good experiences. I would also miss out on other good experiences and oppurtunities to grow spiritually.

I've seen boys go on missions and come back men. I've seen men leave for missions and come back boys. I've talked about mission life with friends that are RMs.. i've gone on splits with the missionaries. From my experiences I can say that it just isn't for me.

I'm worthy and I intend to make my life a 'mission'. But when the fruit is ripe you pick it.

There are practical and spiritual implications to going on a mission. Today's missionaries are tomorrow's leaders. There is no doubt that you will be a better man, a better friend, a better husband and father, a better priesthood holder, a better leader and a much more powerful servant of your Heavenly Father should you desire and serve a mission. There is absolutely nothing wrong with me as a father of a young girl expecting my future son-in-law to show that he has the faith, the desire, determination and drive it takes to walk the streets of the world in the service of our Savior 10 hours a day searching for those waiting to hear the Gospel. Past behavior and attitude is a fair indicator of future performance.The prophets expect it and so should I.

I can understand where your view comes from.. I just think it's incorrect to assume that a mission is what is right for me. I don't see where serving a mission helps you in areas that the real world can't. Faith is faith and good men are good men.

Whether your future son-in-law spent two years serving a mission or two years in college.. I think he (and I!) should be judged by who we are instead of 'what' we are.

I would never publicly shun a young man that choses not to go on a mission. But he has made it abundantly clear where his priorities lay and people have a right to assess those issues and make inferences. That it makes you uncomfortable because you feel is unfair, I guess that comes with the choices you make.

I'm not speaking of young men who choose not to go on a mission because they are lazy or unworthy. I'm speaking of young men who feel as if there are "better" roads for them to follow. It makes me uncomfortable because it seems to be relatively common for young girls to value mission experience over an education.

It's not just missionary stigma. It's the 'he's a new convert' stigma..and the 'he was never a scout' stigma.. and the 'he questions authority' stigma.

I hope you can relate unless I just have terrible ward luck. Good luck with your daughter.. give my regards to her! (I joke.)

The decision to not serve a full-time mission is a serious one. It's foregoing a once-in-a-lifetime experience. Should the Spirit give you a very clear answer to NOT go, then don't go. But short of that, go. It takes a lot of faith to put aside one's life for two years.

Going against the counsel of the prophet to serve a mission, without the confirmation from the Spirit, shows pride. It shows that you believe you know better than the Lord. Setting aside your own wants and plans, and obeying the prophet along with the Spirit, shows humility.

Humility and faith are what it's all about.

Matt. 10: 39
He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.

There's time for the education afterwards.

[Islander]

bmy-

Without desire to contend and just for clarification, Pres. Monson did not served a mission just like 10,000 other Elders kept home because of WW II. I think you should not compare pears and apples. But there is no "better road" than the one that the Savior has pointed to his servants to travel on. And yes, it is quite valid to make a value judgment based on what they do/did, the choices and priorities they have and the choices they make in life. How else are we to form an opinion of who they are?

Again, you had your reasons for not serving a mission and that is your prerogative. You know what the stance of the priesthood is on the matter. Your agency ends there. Complaining about what people may think or say about you because of your choice serves no purpose.

By the way, the whispering of the Spirit about NOT going points to YOU not being ready to serve for God knows all things. The call to serve has been issued to ALL able priesthood holders but it is our duty and responsibility to measure up to be worthy and willing to heed to that calling. So by all means, stay and go on with your life trying your absolute best to reach and fulfill the measure of your purpose in God.