One of your funniest posts in a while. Nicely done.

I've never believed the death penalty deters anyone from committing murder; it's human nature to not kill someone. I've also never believed the Mormon "death penalty" of not being allowed to serve a mission deters a teenager from making sexual mistakes; sex drive is human nature. Kids, specifically teenagers in this case, are going to make mistakes no matter the consequence, and the ONLY thing that matters (or should matter anyway) is if the kid has tried to repent. How is the Atonement somehow not applicable when a kid wants to give up two years for the Lord's work?

On a related note, who cares if a kid has had multiple sex partners if he's repented? The Atonement applies to him/her just as much as the next person.

I have to agree. I have the impression that "raising the bar" is more about disqualifying kids for egregious sins than it is about requiring those who serve to have a closer relationship with Christ (which is what it should be about). If someone has been forgiven of a sin, what possible difference does it make on whether or not they should serve a mission? All we should care about is if the person has done what they should have done to receive repentance and grow closer to Christ.

We're getting a little into the tall grass here, and until we have the exact language in front of us (which I can do later), further discussion seems fruitless to me.

You're speaking of missionary work as if the call to serve is an entitlement. It isn't. Everyone is entitled to the healing power of the atonement to become clean. Everyone is not entitled to be called as a full-time missionary.

Do you believe that every single general authority was a virgin before they got married?

According to who/whom? Has that somehow been revealed?

We quoted D&C in our mission zone conferences all the time...

"Now behold, a marvellous work is about to come forth among the children of men...

therefore, if ye have desires to serve God, ye are called to the work"

Maybe we shouldn't have been quoting that Tex, seriously.

I believe the holding a kid back because he had sex is less about the sin and more about the chance he might succumb again in the mission field.

A kid who has had sex, I believe is more likely to have it again even in the mission field than one who has never participated.

It is kind of the recruiting process at BYU. Eliminate as many chances of something occuring prior to the event. Although the recent article may indicate the process isn't quite as stringent as some board mullahs claimed early in Bronco's tenure.

Let's face it. The church has at it's core prevention rather than rehabilitation. Rehabilitation is great and in some ways at the core of the gospel, but a lot of what we do is to try and scare the living crap out of people as far as taking risks go.

No idea. Ask santos, maybe he can divine something.

It's in the General Handbook of Instructions. Draw your own conclusions.

Maybe you should read the rest of the section.

Also, there are more ways than one to serve. The handbook suggests to bishops that if there are young men who cannot serve fulltime missions (for whatever reason), they could still be called as ward missionaries and serve under his guidance.

Well, there was an internal study done by the church....

I didn't say that raising the bar didn't contribute.