As the "service" for the Young Mens, we've decided that twice a month, one of the Elders from our Quorum will go into each of the Aaronic Priesthood quorums and share a short experience from our missions, thus further hammering into their heads that they need to serve missions.
I have not served a mission, and my Presidency should know this... but this was all being discussed as if they didn't know I hadn't. They discussed "what if there are good Elders in our quorum who haven't served missions, like brother so-and-so." They decided that brother so-and-so should discuss how the missionaries helped HIM join the church... etc etc. So they are wanting to include those who haven't served missions by having them speak to the Young Men as well.
(By the way, I kept quiet during those whole discussion, not knowing what to make of it all)
(By the way, I kept quiet during those whole discussion, not knowing what to make of it all)
Here's where it gets to my conflict. Motivating young men to serve missions is important. But the truth of the matter is not all (and probably not even most) of those young men will actually serve them. And I feel like contributing to the culture and mindset of MISSIONS ARE EVERYTHING... DON'T CONSIDER YOUR FUTURE WITHOUT YOUR MISSION... YOUNG WOMEN WON'T WANT TO MARRY YOU IF YOU'RE NOT A RETURN MISSIONARY... would be very damaging to those who don't serve missions. This is such a personal and real conflict for me.
On one side, like I said, missions are important, but on the other side, missions are not the BE-ALL END-ALL. I am living proof of that.
Anyway. What are your thoughts?
I think, actually, that by participating in this you can offer a really valuable perspective that may be just what one of those young men needs. I think you should have a frank talk with your EQP about where you're coming from and how exactly you feel about missions, both for yourself and others. Then, tell him that you still want to participate and may have a unique perspective, and ask him to speak with you about the best way to bring to bear your unique and important perspective.
ReplyDeleteI think this could be a great opportunity. :)
This is hard stuff. I think we just need to all be more open about it all. Perhaps what needs to be emphasized is striving to live mission-worthy. There are many medical/emotional reasons that have kept good friends of mine off missions, but they should never be made to feel like 2nd-class citizens in the Church for that! Neither should those who can't go due to transgression. None are perfect, but all need to be more understanding of others. Of course, we don't want any of those young men to not be able to serve due to sin, but as much as we emphasize missions we need to also emphasize compassion and forgiveness and worthiness.
ReplyDeleteI certainly don't know all the answers. This really is a hard dilemma. Definitely good food for thought.
I didn't serve a mission because I didn't want to---since I knew if I went I'd be depressed and I wouldn't have my heart in it. For me, it probably was for the better---I think its good for young men to serve missions. If that is what they want to do. If they don't, I think they can still be stalwart members.
ReplyDeleteThis is tough because on the one hand, God has commanded our young men to serve missions, so church leaders spend a lot of effort wanting to encourage boys to be mission-minded, and make that decision long before they are at the age to serve a mission.
ReplyDeleteAnd you won't be hearing anything new by knowing that it was hammered to the young women to decide at a young age to marry in the temple (I'm sure this is also hammered to the young men). I don't specifically remember if it was taught to decide only to marry an RM, but I know that somewhere along the line, merged the two ideas and thought I was being so compassionate by thinking, "Well, there are some good people out there who haven't served missions, but for SURE I am going to marry an RM, in the temple."
Well, after a lot of life experiences, I am glad that there are a lot of young women who see guys for who they are, mission or not.
My desire was not bad; my desire was that I wanted to marry someone who was wholly devoted to the Lord, who loved Him more even than they would love me. It stood to reason that such a man would follow the commandment to serve a mission as well. (In my mind, anyway) With much life experience I now realize that I would not equate the one with the other. I have seen how heavily it weighs on those who haven't served missions, or haven't completed them, for whatever reason. I am almost afraid to ask guys where they have served their missions, because I really don't want to insult them with an insensitive jab like that if they haven't served an official mission.
Now I am grateful that my SIL's decision to marry a worthy young man was able to see past the fact that my BIL (my hubby's brother) did not serve a mission due to depression, sleep struggles, and possibly his aspergers as well. I remember watching how much more it depressed my BIL even though he was told he was most honorably released from serving a mission. I'm glad to see him happily married now.
And yes, he still struggles with depression, just as I do as well even though I have the cookie cutter situation of being married in the temple to a wonderful husband, getting the privilege to stay home with our 4 rambunctious boys; life is real no matter how "perfect" someone's situation may appear on the outside. We're all fighting our own battles.
I wish you the best of luck in all that you're doing. Keep on keeping on.