Now that the LDS Church has raised the

[Tex]

Originally Posted by jay santos

The part I meant, which I'm sure you know, is the part that says young men who have sexual relations with more than one person or multiple incidents with same person are disqualified from missionary service.

No I didn't know. I'm surprised you've gotten so specific, actually.

So is it your position that the decrease in full-time missionaries and baptisms is a result of multiple-partner and extended-period promiscuous young men being denied service?

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Tex

No I didn't know. I'm surprised you've gotten so specific, actually.

So is it your position that the decrease in full-time missionaries and baptisms is a result of multiple-partner and extended-period promiscuous young men being denied service?

Not necessarily just that, but that's part of it. And the vague language about missionaries needing to be worthy obviously doesn't need to change, only the implementation of it. But that specific language leaves little room for interpretation and excludes some worthy young men who would contribute to the cause.

[Indy Coug]

The single biggest contributing factor in the decrease in the number of missionaries in the field (by a large margin) is due to demographics: the decline in the average number of kids in LDS homes has started to kick in.

[MikeWaters]

I have my doubts about Requiem's story. The reason being that I had a friend in my mission who confessed a pre-mission indescretion(s) to our MP, and had not done so prior to the mission because his relative had been his SP.

He explained to me that the procedure was for the MP to contact to the SP, and the SP to make the decision.

Ultimately it was decided, to his great relief, that he could remain. He was a great missionary and was beloved by all around him.

Phone confession, 30 minutes later told to go home? Don't buy it.

I don't know if raising the bar is a great idea or not. All I know is that there are very few missionaries coming out of my stake. It was only a couple years ago that our entire stake had only one missionary in the field.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I have my doubts about Requiem's story. The reason being that I had a friend in my mission who confessed a pre-mission indescretion(s) to our MP, and had not done so prior to the mission because his relative had been his SP.

He explained to me that the procedure was for the MP to contact to the SP, and the SP to make the decision.

Ultimately it was decided, to his great relief, that he could remain. He was a great missionary and was beloved by all around him.

Phone confession, 30 minutes later told to go home? Don't buy it.

I don't know if raising the bar is a great idea or not. All I know is that there are very few missionaries coming out of my stake. It was only a couple years ago that our entire stake had only one missionary in the field.

I don't doubt for one minute a MP sending home someone. A relative of mine has been a Bishop, Stake President, Mission President and Temple President. I only say that to indicate he is a pretty in the faith guy.

He once told me when he was SP he got a call from a MP who chewed him out for the kind of kid he had sent to the mission field from his Stake. The kid wasn't breaking any rules, the SP just thought he was lazy.

I remember my relatives comment about the MP, "what a jackass."

[SoonerCoug]

There was a guy on my mission who had stolen about 18,000 dollars from his workplace, and he was one of our "best" missionaries and served as AP with me. He wasn't a virgin, either. But he worked hard and did lots of good things.

Fact is, there are plenty of lazy missionaries who are virgins, and plenty of awesome missionaries who are not virgins. I think it's a huge mistake to keep someone home from a mission because they were previously sexually active.

And I think this is what the Church means when they say "raising the bar." I think they're saying that they don't want to send out non-virgin missionaries.

If someone sincerely wants to serve a mission, and prior bad behavior has been forsaken, I say let them serve.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

There was a guy on my mission who had stolen about 18,000 dollars from his workplace, and he was one of our "best" missionaries and served as AP with me. He wasn't a virgin, either. But he worked hard and did lots of good things.

Fact is, there are plenty of lazy missionaries who are virgins, and plenty of awesome missionaries who are not virgins. I think it's a huge mistake to keep someone home from a mission because they were previously sexually active.

And I think this is what the Church means when they say "raising the bar." I think they're saying that they don't want to send out non-virgin missionaries.

If someone sincerely wants to serve a mission, and prior bad behavior has been forsaken, I say let them serve.

Heaven forbid we send missionaries out with experience.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by Goatnapper'96

Because Joe Cool runs around without wearing the priesthood protection he entered into by covenant, unshaven and wearing hippie coveralls and a devout priesthood leader lovingly corrects you hold grudges.

KISS MY ASS CARROT SNAPPER!

Well, in the spirit of Requiem sob-story excuse making, I lay this all at the feet of my MP. His heavy-handed treatment broke my poor little spirit to the point of disillusionment, leading to a post-mission life replete with long-haired-unshaven-hippy grooming (and accompanying trips to the HC Office for counseling), close-to-the-edge romantic interludes, dating outside my religion and then marrying outside the temple, and even (heaven forbid) a class at the University of Utah Institute of Religion. It was only the love of a good Italian Catholic girl that brought me back home.

My roots run deep in the Gem State: a Bannock Memorial Hospital birth, my father the original Napoleon Dynamite of Preston, my mother out of good Danish immigrant stock up Basalt way, my early years spent in Tyhee where a street bears my family name, and relations that dot the span of the Snake River from Pocatello to Boise. All this was seemingly lost on the MP; he had no idea from whence Joe got his Cool. A more perceptive leader could certainly have prevented my fall from grace.

But alas, that is all past. I’m now a Volunteer. GO BIG ORANGE!!!

Stinking spuds.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by InVinoVeritas

Bannock Memorial has produced some of the world's greats. Preston's pedigree, however, is somewhat suspect as those who truly are chosen are bred on the sweet potatoes of the West Side.

Yam or Russet, you're all SPUDS to me.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Not necessarily just that, but that's part of it. And the vague language about missionaries needing to be worthy obviously doesn't need to change, only the implementation of it. But that specific language leaves little room for interpretation and excludes some worthy young men who would contribute to the cause.

Somehow I doubt the number of repentant, worthy former multiple-partner adulterer/fornicators prohibited from service is so great as to have any appreciable impact on the work. Call me crazy.

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

And I think this is what the Church means when they say "raising the bar." I think they're saying that they don't want to send out non-virgin missionaries.

If someone sincerely wants to serve a mission, and prior bad behavior has been forsaken, I say let them serve.

With the exception of the circumstance santos points out, this is already the policy. Assuming they have demonstrated proper repentance, they may serve.

---

As an aside, I should note that missionary service is not an entitlement as it seems to be treated here. There is great wisdom in calling those who have prepared themselves for the work and are desirous to serve God. Sending a boy into the field who is otherwise uncommitted, unprepared, or unworthy hoping that the mission will affect him positively is a dangerous crapshoot. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it results in a bunch of SoonerCoug-style mission stories.

If a boy is not properly prepared or worthy by 19, let the priesthood work with him closely until he is ready, and then send him later. Not the other way around.