I find that I often have the desire to write every single day, some days multiple times. Not everything I desire to write about would be important or of interest to most people. I also do not desire to inundate my main blog with a whole lot that nobody would care about. I find it a bit frustrating when I go to one of the few blogs that I read, and encounter a whole slew of new posts. I never read them all, usually only the latest. I guess I'm a jerk like that. So I think I'll probably do all of my writing here, and then anything of worth will probably end up on my main blog.
One thing that has been on my mind of late concerns my faith and the atonement. One of my dearest friends didn't serve a mission. This, in Provo, often earns him disparaging looks from many a local acolyte, certain that not serving a mission automatically means that one is a spiritual sub-human.
On a semi-related tangent, I can't say how many times I have been with him when meeting new Provo co-eds and one of the first things asked/assumed was, "Where did you serve your mission?" Such a foolish thing to say. It is a recipe for discomfort and for causing someone to have to possibly give an explanation about something that really isn't one's business. He, of course, after having toiled through a few years of being a twenty-something non-RM-mutant, was pretty good at turning a potentially awkward situation into basically nothing. He would generally provide some ridiculous answer that left the poor females severely confused. I guess what I am saying here, is it is foolish to assume that every twenty-something man in the valley served a mission. Instead of asking, "Where," why not rather ask "If?" Girls, you accomplish the same goal, it is merely a more PC way to go about it.
On a similar note, I also grow highly annoyed during priesthood when whomever is teaching the lesson or commenting makes broad sweeping statements such as, "Well, we all realized when we served our missions..." or, "When you were a missionary, you learned..." Such comments completely alienate those who happened to not serve a mission. Having had some fairly close friends in that situation, I am a bit sensitive to the lack of empathy that using those broad statements shows.
Anyways, back to where I was previously headed. Within the last few years, the church has "raised the bar," concerning who will be allowed to serve missions. I can understand this at a fundamental and base level--they are trying to weed out all of the morons who go, but really didn't want to and thus are a hinderence to those who truly want to be there. Also, the church is seeking to "up the worthiness," as it were, of those who are going to serve. The church is seeking cleaner, more prepared vessels to do the Lord's work. That, I can understand. What I don't understand, however, are the slew of people that this new system ultimately leaves out. Part of raising the bar means excluding young men (and women) from serving if they have committed certain sins in their past. This, to me, seems to be an utter paradox. It seems to say that the atonement doesn't have the efficacy to heal certain wounds, and sufficiently cleanse certain sins.
This friend of mine is probably one of the most solid, righteous church members that I know. Yet, in his past he went through a rather long period of innactivity and commited some fairly grevious sins. However, he repented, returned to full activity, reieved the priesthood and temple endowments, yet 2 different bishops refused to allow him to serve a mission. Nobody would have been a better missionary than this guy. He loves the church, loves the gosple, and has an amazing spirit about him. Nevertheless, apparently the church does not see him fit, nor the atonement sufficiently cleansing to send him into the mission field. Absolutely absurd.
There is another guy in my current ward. He has talked of nothing the last month, except for his desire and excitement about receiving a mission call. He is a little late going out, already 20. Recently I overheard him talking to someone, and telling them about how he isn't allowed to serve, due to some gnarly things in his past. For goodness sakes, if a person is repentent and has a burning desire, why would they not let him go? It just makes no sense to me. One of the best missionaries that I knew in the field was a guy who went out when he was 22. He had done some pretty terrible things in his past, repented, and was serving as one of the strongest, most spiritual missionaries that I ever knew. How many guys like that are falling through the cracks, or being tossed to the wayside? Were not Saul and Alma the younger 2 of the greatest missionaries who ever lived, despite being rehabilitated murderers of souls?
I would sure love some insight into this.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I can't tell you how much time I have put into thinking about this topic. Its seriously ridiculous. I wish I had some incite but sadly I don't.
this topic is a very sore one with me. i personally didn't "put in papers", but i married one who didn't go on a mission. my family STILL treats him poorly after 10 years. but that is another story. i get pretty uptight about people asking that as a first question and think it's just plain rude. my theory is, if you repented and Heavenly Father forgets-why can't the church? once repentant, it's like it never happened, isn't that what we are taught?
i have found this quite appalling myself, on more then one level.
i dated a boy for two years who was 20-22 and hadn't served a mission.
he didn't go because of worthiness but just because of certain question he had dealing with church principles.
I often had a hard time meeting people with him and when they would find out he hadn't served a mission i knew many were assuming it was because of some sin between the two of us.
after reading the book of mormon together four times over a the span of two years and really discussing religious matter to no end. he decided to turn his papers in.
here was someone that didn't want to go just because the pressure was on at 19.
i feel like they 'raise the bar' when it comes to sin, but what about when it comes to understanding the church doctrine and principles ?
isn't one of the most basic principles taught even to the youngest of children, that everything is possible through Jesus Christ ?
was i lied to ?
This is extremely sad. Jesus himself was one who invited sinners into his closest circle.
I think this situation also serves to create a bit of a "good mormon/bad mormon" view of members. If the LDS church proceeds with this kind of "missionary screening," if you will, the answer to that where-you-served-your-mission question will no longer be "personal reasons," but "because the church decided i was too dirty." How embarassing is that?
Post a Comment