Letter: Follow the prophet
I’ve never done anything like this before, but this is just absolutely ridiculous.
If you were unprivileged as I was to read the letter “Mission doesn’t make the man,” you too read irresponsible and misleading statements that insinuate that serving a mission is just not that big of a deal; it’s kind of just up to you to determine if you feel like it’s a necessary thing to serve the Lord. I just can’t let that go.
Is there truth to the idea that a title, in and of itself, does not make you all it should be? Certainly, yes. Does there exist a small percentage of elders that did missionary things for two years, and returned in vain? Does that happen?
Sadly, we all know that it does occasionally.
That pathetic percentage, however, is more of a reflection on those people than it is on returned missionaries as a whole. My wife and I talk every single day about the changes we both underwent as we served. Every day. We are not unique.
Long before I ever met my wife, the Lord gave me the experiences that I needed to be ready for, and worthy of, my wife. These sacred, personal learning opportunities came while serving full-time.
As an older brother of an unmarried 19-year-old sister, please disregard that article. It is false. It will get you nowhere. Marry an RM that keeps his covenants. Follow the prophet, not “advice” from some dude.
Alec Kearns
I found this guy's comments to be so offensive, that I am not going to conceal his name. I found one of the responses to this letter to be SPOT ON, and extremely logical! Here is his response:
Alec,
While I can accept that in your mind serving a mission is the ONLY way to follow the Prophets counsel, I cannot, nor will I ever, appreciate your lopsided view that women should only date returned missionaries, and nobody else.
You want to know why you are wrong? I did not serve a mission. And you want to know what? I have a condition to which going on one would be a bad idea, and I was told they would not let me go on one anyway.
By your logic, I am disobedient, and undeserving of Eternal Marriage. Why? Because I was born with an anxiety disorder? That automatically denies me the opportunity for the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom?
With all due respect, individuals I have encountered in my life who hold your viewpoint make me sick. I feel I have a duty to speak out against people like you in behalf of those in similar situations like myself.
(I can guarantee you, that no Prophet or Apostle would frown upon a young devote LDS Woman choosing to marry a young man who was unable to serve a mission for reasons outside his control. Why would they? That would be ridiculous.)
Alec, I think you need to do more research on what the Prophets have said about this issue before you deserve credibility to be taken seriously.
Amen. Spot on. The only problem I have with this poster's response is the text I highlighted in yellow. This user believes that the Prophets and Apostles would never frown upon young men who did not serve missions getting married. Actually, they would. I am pretty sure that Thomas Monson and his 14 lunatics feel that if you did not go on a mission, you don't deserve to get married, because of all the potential tithe payers you never converted.
Here is another response from an anonymous poster (Boyd KKK Packer?). You will understand why this poster decided to maintain anonymity when you see it:
I appreciate this viewpoint! From an outsider's view you would not think this school is full of LDS people.
As far as I know, serving a mission is a responsibility of a man. And sure there are exceptions, like war, but hardly any I would allow in this day of age. If not a mission, then what did he think was more important? Why are we even talking about this?
Whoever the poster was is a complete asshole. Uh, how about they have anxiety disorders? They can't afford to go? Or maybe they just have a mind, and don't want to be treated like shit for 2 years! We are "talking about this" because it is a problem, and one that needs to be addressed, but unfortunately never will. As long as there are assholes like this poster out there, young men will never feel accepted if they don't go on a mission, which is sad, especially if they have to live in Utah County!
For the rest of this blog entry, I am going to focus primarily on a discussion board on Facebook's "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" page. There is a discussion in particular named, "Would u marry a worthy priesthood holder if he didn't serve a mission?"
To start off with, here is the original poster's question:
Would u marry a worthy priesthood holder if he didn't serve a mission? i am just curious on what people think about this.
Here are the most noteworthy responses:
1. If he was a worthy priesthood holder, why didnt he serve a mission in the first place? Why didnt he put gods work before his own.
2. for guys, its a commandment, so i feel that if they had that opportunity and didnt take it then they probably wont be my first choice. ive seen the blessings and experience that come with missions and i want that to be apart of my future home and family. so its definitely a standard i hold, but im not going to hate a guy if he didnt. i have a brother who didnt go and he's still an amazing guy who married in the temple. and if that right person comes around and he didnt, and i know its right, then sure i will marry him. but personally i want someone, who if it was possible for them to go at the age of 19, willingly and worthily went.
3. (I actually know this poster, and that makes his reply even sadder) - According to the Brethren, those worthy and able (both physically and mentally) to serve a mission are commanded to serve. There may be "some young men who aren't meant to serve a mission," but those young men (if they are worthy) are those who are incapacitated either physically or mentally. President Packer said, "It does not matter if it interrupts your schooling or delays your career or your marriage - or basketball. Unless you have a serious health problem, every Latter-day Saint young man should answer the call to serve a mission" (Ensign, May 1984, 42).
It IS relevant whether or not they served a mission. It is not the only thing to look at, of course, but it is most certainly relevant. If they did not serve, what is relevant why they did not serve. If a worthiness issue in their life happened that precluded them from serving and they have since repented and are now worthy, that is another story. As people have mentioned, a "worthy" priesthood holder is the key. But don't pretend there are some young men who just aren't meant to serve for whatever reason (maybe because they just don't feel the Lord wants them to, or they're not ready, etc. - if that is the case, prepare yourself and go at a later age) - saying that is calling the prophets liars.
4. I agree with (poster 3) completely. I believe that there are too many young men that use pathetic excuses to "redeem" themselves from serving a full-time mission. I personally would not marry a worthy priesthood holder if he didn't serve a mission because, to me, those two years are an invaluable time of learning and growth that cannot be compared to other life experiences. It is also important to me because I want my children to have the example of their father's willingness and worthiness to serve as a pre-cursor to their opportunities for blessings later in life. I don't believe that a young man should be seen as a "lost cause" because he did not serve a mission but I have seen that it haunts those young men for the rest of their lives. It IS a commandment for all worthy young men to serve a full-time mission and I find it discouraging to hear that many members of our Church either do not realize this or simply find that an exaggeration of our living prophet's words.
5. If he can't give up two years of his life to serve the lord than how do I know that he would stick it out for eternity.
6. It honestly depends on what your patriarchal blessing says. Some say that you will marry a return missionary. Some say you won't some don't say if he is or not and some even say you won't get married.
7. Personally, I've always been taught to marry a Worthy returned missionary. And I know there are really awesome guys out there that have not gone on missions for various reasons. My dad didn't go on a mission and he's awesome! But I also know personally some even more incredible guys that did serve a mission. I believe that those guys that go on missions and endure to the end will be a good example to their sons. For me, that is the number one thing on my list of qualities i'm looking for in a husband, and it is extremely important to me.
8. I definitely agree that
1. just because you served a mission doesn't necessarily mean you're a saint2. you can be a worthy young man and had not served a mission
but, for me it has always been my goal to marry a return missionary. It's a commandment for all worthy young men to serve a mission. Being an RM means that you have had that commitment to God, you were willing to completely devote two years of your life to him. How awesome is that? So its not that I don't think you have to go on a mission to honor your priesthood, but it's definitely a bonus and if you love the gospel than you're willing to share it with others.
If a girl wants to marry a man who has not served that's great, but those of us that choose a higher standard, should not be chastized. We want men that follow through with what they say they will do.
You can't honestly expect to sin sin sin and not see consequences of those actions. Once again I am not talking about those who are PHYSICALY UNABLE- let me define this- Health issues, Mental Issues, or not a member at the time. But for all of you young men who grow up knowing what the prophet has asked of you, you have to expect the consequence!
Yes I know many great wonderful men who have never served, I am simply saying, THERE ARE CONSEQUENCES! and we women DESERVE the qualities that come from the COMMANDMENTS that the LORD has set.
That is reality! So stop your poor mes and be men, be real men!
And don't preach to me about repentance, I've been there, I've seen repentence just like every body else. My point is that unfortunatley repentance doesn't fix everything, there are still consequences and it's not fair for you people to tell us who we should be "doing buisness" with again
"You can forgive someone, but that does not mean you Have to do buisness with that person again." - PRESIDENT HINCKELY
Why is it that no one else seems to realize that there are consequences? You know a possible consequence is that he may miss out on a great girl! But HE MADE that decision! He did. He's the one that CHOSE not to prepare for a mission, He's the one who CHOSE not to go. We all make decisions and we all get consequences.
Could it be that once again Satan is trying to convince us that there is no responsibility and no consequences? Could it be that maybe he is trying to downgrade the importance on a mission? Yeah maybe what the prophet, or the lord for that matter isn't all that important. I don't know about you, but It is very very important to me. I refuse to let Satan blind side me.
We are not judging! we are deciding which qualities we want in our husbands.
Of course, there are those who can't for REAL reasons like a medical problem, a past serious sin, or simply too old to go, but these guys are mostly sorry that they didn't go. Since they can't go, guys should make that their first priority pre-mission. A couple mission is always great, but you never know what might happen in your life.
Now marry, that I can understand being up to the woman's discresion. You can refuse to marry a person for any reason, and that's fine. Marriage is afterall, a lifetime, and eternal committment.
My feeling is that if a woman dated a guy who didn't go on a mission, and fell in love with him anyway, she would realize that it is a pretty irrational quality to judge a person by.
A woman is never obligated to say yes to a guy that she doesn't want to date. I think you have dating confused with a Mormon church dance in when you say "you have to say yes." In the real world, dating means a lot to many people, and they view it as a means to find someone they want to marry. If they know they don't want to marry someone who is obviously unworthy, they are NOT obligated spend time with that person, especially in a formal or romantic manner.
This is ridiculous, because it implies that any man who did not serve a mission is not good enough to get married.
Based on the logic of the LDS Church, that it is the only true Church, and that it's goal is for everyone to convert, then it implies that if you don't serve a mission, you are not good enough to marry anybody.
As somebody who has not served a mission in the LDS Church, I cannot deny that my life as a single adult in Utah County has not been at times hell. Why didn't I serve a mission? Because I have uncontrollable anxiety issues, and a psychiatrist has told me going on a mission would be a bad idea. This is not my fault.
Your statement suggests that the mindset, "I only should date an RM" is not unChristlike. The opposite is true for me.
I feel that there is a lot of unnecessary pain that men who are unable to serve missions living in Utah County have to experience, and it's too much.
Whenever I am in the midst of non-members, I don't ever have to worry about the unnecessary awkwardness of being asked if or where I served.
I find the way men like me who didn't serve missions to be a testament that the LDS is NOT the only true Church. I believe all religions have truth, and not one is "The only true one".
Perhaps Church Leaders need to step it up in order to make sure men like me feel a little more at home.
If you are trying to pick a fight, you may want to consider posting in logic that is constructed less poorly than the Titanic was.
I have been insulted by far more intelligent than you, so you'll have to try a little harder if you want to get to me.
All I will say, is based on what you wrote, I consider you to be the very epitime of this toxic mindset that gives people like me such a hard time maintaining a stable testimony in the Church.
Your pal,
Jacob
I'm sure you have standards and a filter on people with whom you ask on a date. Women should have that choice too, don't you think?
I am suggesting that unworthy members of the Church are entitled to have friends. What I am suggesting is that an environment in which socially isolating individuals who are perceived to be, or even openly, unworthy, is unChristlike. People who sin deserve friends. If this were not true, nobody would be deserving of friendships, as we are all sinners.
I think where we disagree is on the terms of "dating means seriously considering a person as an eternal companion". Not true at all.
Yes, women have the choice to say yes or no. But if their only reason is, "he is not an RM", or "he is unworthy", then they are missing out on diverse friendships.
I understand what you're saying, but to me it's more applicable to people in high school, as girls were encouraged to say yes to people who asked them even if they weren't interested. But the purpose of dating changes for people over time. It's perfectly ok to have marriage in mind when it comes to dating. There is nothing un-Christlike about it. If an unworthy man wants a woman who is looking for a worthy man, he needs to get his act together, pure and simple. Otherwise, he's looking at the wrong demographic.
It is not human to expect people to be perfect, which is how Mormons expect people to be.
I looked at the missionary rules the other day. I am 100 percent positive that there is no living man or woman on the planet who is able to live all of them. Why persist in teaching this myth?
Mormons seriously need to lower their expectations from one another.
"Real" humans are willing to date men who aren't perfect. Why not LDS Women?