New missionary push hypocrisy

[Mindfields]

I could care less if Nelson, Oaks and Eyring went on missions. It seems that free agency was still alive and well in those days. Unlike today where we have moral agency and are coerced and shamed to do as the leaders dictate.

[Artaxerxes]

I could care less if Nelson, Oaks and Eyring went on missions. It seems that free agency was still alive and well in those days. Unlike today where we have moral agency and are coerced and shamed to do as the leaders dictate.

Which part of "there's a war going on so you can't go on a mission" represents free agency for them?

[CuriousThinker]

Back to the OP...

Our ward also did 5th Sunday "Boys MUST go on Missions" .

Was this church wide?
Utah Region wide?

Ours was on Family History.

You have a rogue bishop.

[EmmaLee]

Back to the OP...

Our ward also did 5th Sunday "Boys MUST go on Missions" .

Was this church wide?
Utah Region wide?

We live in the upper Midwestern U.S. Our 5th Sunday was on missionary work, as well.

[Mindfields]

I could care less if Nelson, Oaks and Eyring went on missions. It seems that free agency was still alive and well in those days. Unlike today where we have moral agency and are coerced and shamed to do as the leaders dictate.

Which part of "there's a war going on so you can't go on a mission" represents free agency for them?

I seriously don't care what their reasons were for going or not going. I only wish they would stop with the you don't have a choice in the matter. Packer and Bednar are jackasses.

[Artaxerxes]

I could care less if Nelson, Oaks and Eyring went on missions. It seems that free agency was still alive and well in those days. Unlike today where we have moral agency and are coerced and shamed to do as the leaders dictate.

Which part of "there's a war going on so you can't go on a mission" represents free agency for them?

I seriously don't care what their reasons were for going or not going. I only wish they would stop with the you don't have a choice in the matter. Packer and Bednar are jackasses.

You certainly can disagree with them. But your claim was that they had the choice whether or not to go. They didn't.

[mike_rumble]

So I had to do a little research today. You see, during the fifth Sunday lesson about all young men covenanted to serve missions B.S. I brought up the fact that none of the current top three served missions. Some old lady piped up that they were in the military so they couldn't serve missions. I did some research and came up with this. RMN joined the in 1953 at age 32. So he put his education and career before a mission. Oakes was in the Nat. Guard and uses that as his excuse as to why he didn't go on a mission. Yes, two days a month and two weeks a year will do that.. Eyering served two years in the AF joining in 1955...at age 22. So none of these guys can use their military service as an excuse to why they didn't serve missions.

RMN was born in 1924. He was 18 in 1942. Nobody served missions. There were no missions. It was the middle of World War 2.

So that’s one struck off your list.

DHO was born in 1932. He was 18 in 1950. The Korean War began in 1950. Oaks was a member of the Utah National Guard and was on call up standby for the Korean War.


HBE was born in 1933.
He was 18 in 1951. This was also during the Korean War. I don’t know why he didn’t serve a full time mission.

Tell me why RMN didn't get called up for WW2 then? University deferment perhaps?

Why didn't they serve a mission as soon as those wars ended? Is there a rule that says if you make it pass 18 you don't serve a mission?

[Artaxerxes]

So I had to do a little research today. You see, during the fifth Sunday lesson about all young men covenanted to serve missions B.S. I brought up the fact that none of the current top three served missions. Some old lady piped up that they were in the military so they couldn't serve missions. I did some research and came up with this. RMN joined the in 1953 at age 32. So he put his education and career before a mission. Oakes was in the Nat. Guard and uses that as his excuse as to why he didn't go on a mission. Yes, two days a month and two weeks a year will do that.. Eyering served two years in the AF joining in 1955...at age 22. So none of these guys can use their military service as an excuse to why they didn't serve missions.

RMN was born in 1924. He was 18 in 1942. Nobody served missions. There were no missions. It was the middle of World War 2.

So that’s one struck off your list.

DHO was born in 1932. He was 18 in 1950. The Korean War began in 1950. Oaks was a member of the Utah National Guard and was on call up standby for the Korean War.


HBE was born in 1933.
He was 18 in 1951. This was also during the Korean War. I don’t know why he didn’t serve a full time mission.

Tell me why RMN didn't get called up for WW2 then? University deferment perhaps?

Why didn't they serve a mission as soon as those wars ended? Is there a rule that says if you make it pass 18 you don't serve a mission?

RMN was married.

[EmmaLee]

My father served a full-time mission during this same time period (1940's). He married my mom, they had two kids, then he served a full-time proselyting mission for two years, 2,000 miles away, while his wife and their two babies lived with her parents. Lots of things in the church were done differently back then. Just because Nelson was married, didn't mean he couldn't have still served a mission. He just chose to do other things.

[JuneBug12000]

Back to the OP...

Our ward also did 5th Sunday "Boys MUST go on Missions" .

Was this church wide?
Utah Region wide?

Ours was on Family History.

You have a rogue bishop.

He is pretty great! But I think we had our lesson planned long in advance.

[EmmaLee]

My father served a full-time mission during this same time period (1940's). He married my mom, they had two kids, then he served a full-time proselyting mission for two years, 2,000 miles away, while his wife and their two babies lived with her parents. Lots of things in the church were done differently back then. Just because Nelson was married, didn't mean he couldn't have still served a mission. He just chose to do other things.

Meant to also say, my dad didn't let serving a mission after he was married stop him from achieving his other goals. After he got back from serving for two years in (what was then called) the Eastern States Mission, he, my mom, and their two little ones moved up to SLC (nobody's perfect), where he got his Ph.D. from the University of Utah - after which they moved back to Mesa where they had several more children. Then, for an adventure, they all trekked up to the Last Frontier for a couple years, and just in time for the massive quake in '64 - thankfully, they lived out in the woods, so had minimal damage/no injuries. I was born there - the last of their 8 children. Many years later, after he retired, he and my mom served three full-time senior missions (in NJ, CA, and NC). People find a way to achieve their goals, if they truly matter to them.

[Obrien]

So I had to do a little research today. You see, during the fifth Sunday lesson about all young men covenanted to serve missions B.S. I brought up the fact that none of the current top three served missions. Some old lady piped up that they were in the military so they couldn't serve missions. I did some research and came up with this. RMN joined the in 1953 at age 32. So he put his education and career before a mission. Oakes was in the Nat. Guard and uses that as his excuse as to why he didn't go on a mission. Yes, two days a month and two weeks a year will do that.. Eyering served two years in the AF joining in 1955...at age 22. So none of these guys can use their military service as an excuse to why they didn't serve missions.

Whether they served missions or not, it doesn't change the truthfulness of what is being taught. I suspect they had good reasons for not going, but even if they didn't, a wrong decision back then does not preclude them from teaching the correct principle now.

All priesthood holders should be willing and ready to serve a mission whenever the Lord calls. Young men who are Aaronic priesthood holders should be planning on serving a mission when they graduate high school. There are very few legitimate reasons not to.

That being said, I think we should be much more discriminating in who receives the priesthood. Much of our problems come from people who have been given the authority to act in Gods name without actually having any of the requisite faith.

The Lord doesn't call anyone on a mission. Years of indoctrination coupled with LDS cultural expectations lead young folks to "turn in their papers ", then a GA assigns them to a mission. Whether or not a missionary serves where they are called to serve is dependent on many factors (pandemic, travel visas, changes in government policies, needs of mission presidents etc). If the Lord was actually driving the missionary bus, He would be able to proactively address issues like the
Covid restrictions rather than react.

[InfoWarrior82]

So I had to do a little research today. You see, during the fifth Sunday lesson about all young men covenanted to serve missions B.S. I brought up the fact that none of the current top three served missions. Some old lady piped up that they were in the military so they couldn't serve missions. I did some research and came up with this. RMN joined the in 1953 at age 32. So he put his education and career before a mission. Oakes was in the Nat. Guard and uses that as his excuse as to why he didn't go on a mission. Yes, two days a month and two weeks a year will do that.. Eyering served two years in the AF joining in 1955...at age 22. So none of these guys can use their military service as an excuse to why they didn't serve missions.

Whether they served missions or not, it doesn't change the truthfulness of what is being taught. I suspect they had good reasons for not going, but even if they didn't, a wrong decision back then does not preclude them from teaching the correct principle now.

All priesthood holders should be willing and ready to serve a mission whenever the Lord calls. Young men who are Aaronic priesthood holders should be planning on serving a mission when they graduate high school. There are very few legitimate reasons not to.

That being said, I think we should be much more discriminating in who receives the priesthood. Much of our problems come from people who have been given the authority to act in Gods name without actually having any of the requisite faith.

The Lord doesn't call anyone on a mission. Years of indoctrination coupled with LDS cultural expectations lead young folks to "turn in their papers ", then a GA assigns them to a mission. Whether or not a missionary serves where they are called to serve is dependent on many factors (pandemic, travel visas, changes in government policies, needs of mission presidents etc). If the Lord was actually driving the missionary bus, He would be able to proactively address issues like the
Covid restrictions rather than react.

I would add... If the Lord truly were driving the bus, He wouldn't be calling missionaries who will never get the jab to places on earth where the jab is required. So much for "inspiration".

[Thinker]

According to the link you posted, he could have gone, just only to 2 main areas…

”… Missionaries were not evacuated from South America, but after 1941 no new missionaries were sent to that continent, and by 1943 none remained there. By that time proselyting by the regular full-time missionaries was limited to North America and Hawaii…”

No. He could not. Two things can be true at once. They allowed NO draft age missionaries when he was 19. Period.

Yet there were full time missionaries.... Hmmmm.... If only there were some kind of missionaries that they could be referring to.... Maybe some kind of missionary that ISN'T draft age.... What could that possibly be?

Where is that written regarding the ages of the missionaries serving then in North America & Hawaii?

Were they toddlers? Old people?

”1943... By that time proselyting by the regular full-time missionaries was limited to North America and Hawaii…”

Please show proof that Nelson could not have served in these 2 general areas in which missionaries were serving during the time you claim he couldn’t serve.

I already did. NO draft age men could be called. Period.

You didn’t indicate the ages of the many missionaries serving throughout North America (United States, Canada, Mexico) & Hawaii during the time that Nelson supposedly couldn’t serve a mission.

[Subcomandante]

In 1942, the only male missionaries that could be called were Seventies and High Priests.

In 1943, a modification was made: No men within the draft age (18 to 37) could be recommended for missionary service without going through extenuating circumstances AND approval from the First Presidency was given after considering the circumstances.

The limits on missionary calls for men would not be removed until two years after the Korean war ended (1955).

[Artaxerxes]

No. He could not. Two things can be true at once. They allowed NO draft age missionaries when he was 19. Period.

Yet there were full time missionaries.... Hmmmm.... If only there were some kind of missionaries that they could be referring to.... Maybe some kind of missionary that ISN'T draft age.... What could that possibly be?

Where is that written regarding the ages of the missionaries serving then in North America & Hawaii?

Were they toddlers? Old people?

”1943... By that time proselyting by the regular full-time missionaries was limited to North America and Hawaii…”

Please show proof that Nelson could not have served in these 2 general areas in which missionaries were serving during the time you claim he couldn’t serve.

I already did. NO draft age men could be called. Period.

You didn’t indicate the ages of the many missionaries serving throughout North America (United States, Canada, Mexico) & Hawaii during the time that Nelson supposedly couldn’t serve a mission.

They would have to be older or sisters. Because again, NO draft age men were called.

[Thinker]

It’s doubtful sisters were the “regular full time missionaries” mentioned. ”While women missionaries were allowed, even appreciated, they seemed to be afterthoughts. That image has changed in the 1980s and 1990s.” https://www.jstor.org/stable/23287633

Again, from the link Artaxerxes posted:

”… Missionaries were not evacuated from South America, but after 1941 no new missionaries were sent to that continent, and by 1943 none remained there. By that time proselyting by the regular full-time missionaries was limited to North America and Hawaii…”

Most understand “regular full-time missionaries” to be young adults - mostly young men, especially in the 1940’s. And otherwise “senior couples” would be mentioned.

Missionaries were serving throughout North America (United States, Canada, Mexico) & Hawaii during the time that Nelson supposedly couldn’t serve a mission. It makes sense because WW II was not being fought there. No draft men were called to much of the world, but they were called to & serving in “North America and Hawaii.”

[Artaxerxes]

It’s doubtful sisters were the “regular full time missionaries” mentioned. ”While women missionaries were allowed, even appreciated, they seemed to be afterthoughts. That image has changed in the 1980s and 1990s.” https://www.jstor.org/stable/23287633

Again, from the link Artaxerxes posted:

”… Missionaries were not evacuated from South America, but after 1941 no new missionaries were sent to that continent, and by 1943 none remained there. By that time proselyting by the regular full-time missionaries was limited to North America and Hawaii…”

Most understand “regular full-time missionaries” to be young adults - mostly young men, especially in the 1940’s. And otherwise “senior couples” would be mentioned.

Missionaries were serving throughout North America (United States, Canada, Mexico) & Hawaii during the time that Nelson supposedly couldn’t serve a mission. It makes sense because WW II was not being fought there. No draft men were called to much of the world, but they were called to & serving in “North America and Hawaii.”

You left out the most relevant part: ""In 1942 the Church agreed not to call young men of draft age on missions."

This is like a link stating both that a dealership had no blue cars, but also stating that they still had some cars. You're looking at that and saying "So what colors were they then? How do we know they REALLY didn't have blue cars?"

There's absolutely no conflict between saying they didn't call any draft age men, and saying they still had missionaries. It just means they had missionaries who weren't draft age men.

[darknesstolight]

So I had to do a little research today. You see, during the fifth Sunday lesson about all young men covenanted to serve missions B.S. I brought up the fact that none of the current top three served missions. Some old lady piped up that they were in the military so they couldn't serve missions. I did some research and came up with this. RMN joined the in 1953 at age 32. So he put his education and career before a mission. Oakes was in the Nat. Guard and uses that as his excuse as to why he didn't go on a mission. Yes, two days a month and two weeks a year will do that.. Eyering served two years in the AF joining in 1955...at age 22. So none of these guys can use their military service as an excuse to why they didn't serve missions.

Every human person whether they are a leader of an organization or not has their own journey. We don't know the specifics and it's really not our business because it's their individual choice to obey an edict/command/law/suggestion or not. Because I doubt any of us really knows I don't see how a useful judgment can be made in this case.

Seems kinda silly

...

[Thinker]

…There's absolutely no conflict between saying they didn't call any draft age men, and saying they still had missionaries. It just means they had missionaries who weren't draft age men.

It seems you are REALLY trying & hoping to keep the belief that the Profit could never hypocritically lead you astray. But the fact is NELSON COULD HAVE SERVED A MISSION BUT CHOSE NOT TO…

Nelson would have been 19 in 1943, when several missions were open and some like Navajo-Zuni was organized 1943. To open a mission, you need missionaries called. This was indeed, as the article stated, in one of the areas in which missionaries were serving (throughout North America -United States, Canada, Mexico & Hawaii) during those years.

”In 1945 there were the following missions in the United States: Northern California (organized 1942) Navajo-Zuni (organized 1943) New England (organized 1937) Spanish-American (organized 1936) Texas (organized 1931) East Central States North Central States Northwestern States Western States Central States Southern States Eastern States… (and more - see list of missions in link)
https://www.liquisearch.com/mission_lds ... _expansion


Nelson’s not the only one hypocritically telling young men they MUST serve missions when they didn’t…

”Packer's military service ended in 1946 when he was aged 22. Rather than serve a mission, which he could have (he was single, aged 22 with no further military obligations) he decided to attend Weber College, where he met his wife, and married her in 1947. The Church says he didn't serve a mission because he was on active duty in the war. Not so. He could have served a mission after his discharge, but chose school and marriage instead.

To all the TBMs out there - look! you can choose not to serve a mission and still end up being the Lord's Prophet, Seer and Revelator! Not serving a mission won't make any difference to your eternal salvation.”

FOLLOW THE PROFIT!

[Artaxerxes]

…There's absolutely no conflict between saying they didn't call any draft age men, and saying they still had missionaries. It just means they had missionaries who weren't draft age men.

It seems you are REALLY trying & hoping to keep the belief that the Profit could never hypocritically lead you astray. But the fact is NELSON COULD HAVE SERVED A MISSION BUT CHOSE NOT TO…

Nelson would have been 19 in 1943, when several missions were open and some like Navajo-Zuni was organized 1943. To open a mission, you need missionaries called. This was indeed, as the article stated, in one of the areas in which missionaries were serving (throughout North America -United States, Canada, Mexico & Hawaii) during those years.

”In 1945 there were the following missions in the United States: Northern California (organized 1942) Navajo-Zuni (organized 1943) New England (organized 1937) Spanish-American (organized 1936) Texas (organized 1931) East Central States North Central States Northwestern States Western States Central States Southern States Eastern States… (and more - see list of missions in link)
https://www.liquisearch.com/mission_lds ... _expansion


Nelson’s not the only one hypocritically telling young men they MUST serve missions when they didn’t…

”Packer's military service ended in 1946 when he was aged 22. Rather than serve a mission, which he could have (he was single, aged 22 with no further military obligations) he decided to attend Weber College, where he met his wife, and married her in 1947. The Church says he didn't serve a mission because he was on active duty in the war. Not so. He could have served a mission after his discharge, but chose school and marriage instead.

To all the TBMs out there - look! you can choose not to serve a mission and still end up being the Lord's Prophet, Seer and Revelator! Not serving a mission won't make any difference to your eternal salvation.”

FOLLOW THE PROFIT!

I'm not sure which part of "NO draft age young men were called as missionaries" is so hard to grasp....

[darknesstolight]

…There's absolutely no conflict between saying they didn't call any draft age men, and saying they still had missionaries. It just means they had missionaries who weren't draft age men.

It seems you are REALLY trying & hoping to keep the belief that the Profit could never hypocritically lead you astray. But the fact is NELSON COULD HAVE SERVED A MISSION BUT CHOSE NOT TO…

Nelson would have been 19 in 1943, when several missions were open and some like Navajo-Zuni was organized 1943. To open a mission, you need missionaries called. This was indeed, as the article stated, in one of the areas in which missionaries were serving (throughout North America -United States, Canada, Mexico & Hawaii) during those years.

”In 1945 there were the following missions in the United States: Northern California (organized 1942) Navajo-Zuni (organized 1943) New England (organized 1937) Spanish-American (organized 1936) Texas (organized 1931) East Central States North Central States Northwestern States Western States Central States Southern States Eastern States… (and more - see list of missions in link)
https://www.liquisearch.com/mission_lds ... _expansion


Nelson’s not the only one hypocritically telling young men they MUST serve missions when they didn’t…

”Packer's military service ended in 1946 when he was aged 22. Rather than serve a mission, which he could have (he was single, aged 22 with no further military obligations) he decided to attend Weber College, where he met his wife, and married her in 1947. The Church says he didn't serve a mission because he was on active duty in the war. Not so. He could have served a mission after his discharge, but chose school and marriage instead.

To all the TBMs out there - look! you can choose not to serve a mission and still end up being the Lord's Prophet, Seer and Revelator! Not serving a mission won't make any difference to your eternal salvation.”

FOLLOW THE PROFIT!

But you don't really know this about Nelson personally. It IS an assumption.

Going on a mission is a personal choice even when it was strongly encouraged and taught that every young man should serve a mission.

That is as true today as it was then. You ought to serve a mission but that's not how people make decisions. Many factors lead in to a decision like this. And even if a person decides selfishly to not serve they are NOT doomed or stuck. They can repent and change.

At the end of the day we have no idea as to the WHY and/or Motivation for the choices made and being a hypocritical is only one possibility.

Finally it is perfectly OK for a person to teach an idea as good or bad even if they don't live by it. We are all hypocritical.

...

[Subcomandante]

We had stake conference today, and there were a couple of talks that were quite pushy on the topic of serving a mission. Then they talked about everyone doing their part in preaching the gospel, that that doesn't end when you hang up your name tags. D&C 88:81 was cited in that regard.

Elder Gong in multiple leadership meetings down here has emphasized that NOW is Mexico and Latin America's time to shine as far as the preaching of the gospel is concerned, implying that the time of the Gentiles is virtually up. This was also brought up.

As an edit to add, all of the speakers had served missions themselves.

[Thinker]

It seems you are REALLY trying & hoping to keep the belief that the Profit could never hypocritically lead you astray. But the fact is NELSON COULD HAVE SERVED A MISSION BUT CHOSE NOT TO…

Nelson would have been 19 in 1943, when several missions were open and some like Navajo-Zuni was organized 1943. To open a mission, you need missionaries called. This was indeed, as the article stated, in one of the areas in which missionaries were serving (throughout North America -United States, Canada, Mexico & Hawaii) during those years.

”In 1945 there were the following missions in the United States: Northern California (organized 1942) Navajo-Zuni (organized 1943) New England (organized 1937) Spanish-American (organized 1936) Texas (organized 1931) East Central States North Central States Northwestern States Western States Central States Southern States Eastern States… (and more - see list of missions in link)
https://www.liquisearch.com/mission_lds ... _expansion


Nelson’s not the only one hypocritically telling young men they MUST serve missions when they didn’t…

”Packer's military service ended in 1946 when he was aged 22. Rather than serve a mission, which he could have (he was single, aged 22 with no further military obligations) he decided to attend Weber College, where he met his wife, and married her in 1947. The Church says he didn't serve a mission because he was on active duty in the war. Not so. He could have served a mission after his discharge, but chose school and marriage instead.

To all the TBMs out there - look! you can choose not to serve a mission and still end up being the Lord's Prophet, Seer and Revelator! Not serving a mission won't make any difference to your eternal salvation.”

FOLLOW THE PROFIT!

I'm not sure which part of "NO draft age young men were called as missionaries" is so hard to grasp....

I’m not sure which part of

“By 1943 proselyting by theregular full-time missionaries was limited to North America and Hawaii…” you don’t understand - even when it’s a quote from the link you shared!

[Thinker]

…it is perfectly OK for a person to teach an idea as good or bad even if they don't live by it. We are all hypocritical.

Profits say they’ll never lead you astray & to follow THEM. THEY hold themselves to a higher standard which they inevitably fail to meet.