Originally Posted by SoonerCoug (Post 138241)

I agree--a mission is a once in a lifetime opportunity. And I think it's not to be missed, even by the the most serious doubting Thomases.

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug (Post 138249)

I don't think that most people differentiate between RM and non-RM in the Church. Heck, HW Hunter wasn't an RM. Neither was Steve Young, who seems to handle things fine. I love using that as ammo, even when people say that HW Hunter served at a time when a mission was "less mandatory."

I do think that people often regret not serving on a mission, and I think that sometimes people are made to feel inferior for not serving. That's sad.

Personally, I'm glad I served because the experience enriched my life.

But if someone wants to serve a mission, one can always give it a whirl as a senior citizen.

P.S. I don't believe that Steve Young was a virgin when he got married.

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug (Post 138234)

My problem with the entire situation is that I believe a mission is most important for the missionary him/herself. I think that converting people is one of the least important things a Mormon missionary does on a mission. I think it'd be better to have more missionaries serve and fewer converts per missionary (or even fewer total converts).

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug (Post 138241)

I agree--a mission is a once in a lifetime opportunity. And I think it's not to be missed, even by the the most serious doubting Thomases.

Originally Posted by BYU71 (Post 138244)

Is there a perception out there though that the RM is a better person in the eyes of God than the non-RM.

Originally Posted by Tex (Post 138255)

I don't think the leadership shares your view.

Originally Posted by Tex (Post 138255)

I don't think the leadership shares your view.



If true, it's a shame, and a false belief.

It is true, however, that one who chooses not to go on a mission will be explaining that decision for the duration of his life in the church. "Where did you serve?" is just a standard question these days.

I remember once I was chatting with a guy about Germany and he mentioned something about living there when he was younger. I said, "Is that where you served?" and he said, "Yeah, I served in the Army over there." I thought that was a pretty clever way to parlay any potential awkwardness that he must occasionally encounter.

Originally Posted by Tex (Post 138255)

.

It is true, however, that one who chooses not to go on a mission will be explaining that decision for the duration of his life in the church. "Where did you serve?" is just a standard question these days.

Originally Posted by ERCougar (Post 138259)

I rarely ask anyone this unless someone starts talking about his/her mission first. And I don't really hear it asked that much.

I swear that sometimes I go to a different church than everyone else.

Originally Posted by Indy Coug (Post 138180)

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

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

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug (Post 138234)

My problem with the entire situation is that I believe a mission is most important for the missionary him/herself. I think that converting people is one of the least important things a Mormon missionary does on a mission. I think it'd be better to have more missionaries serve and fewer converts per missionary (or even fewer total converts).

Originally Posted by BlueK (Post 138266)

I don't disagree with that. I think what they decided they don't need is those who are the extreme rule breakers, and they at some point decided that those who were the most wild before were the most likely to be the disruptive types. Whether that's true or not, I really don't know.