Now that the LDS Church has raised the

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by scottie

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.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by jay santos

No, that's not the important part of the guideline. The guideline is very specific. It forces a bishop to deny a prospective missionary no matter how deep the broken heart and contrite spirit is. I don't have a copy of the handbook but when I read it before I recall it being "multiple" partners or "multiple" incidents with same partner. I could be wrong on the latter, but I know that's how my bishop interpreted it.

Originally Posted by Adam

You are correct. That is the language.

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.

Originally Posted by scottie

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.

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.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

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?

[scottie]

Originally Posted by Tex

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.

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

[scottie]

Originally Posted by Tex

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.

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.

[BYU71]

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.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

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

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

Originally Posted by scottie

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

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

Originally Posted by scottie

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.

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.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

What??? And it just happened to correlate with the "raising the bar" issue?

Come on, Indy.

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

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

[scottie]

Originally Posted by Tex

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

Okay so it's in the handbook, but that doesn't change my opinion that the Atonement applies to everyone, and that repentance is what matters, not what sexual mistakes they've made.

Originally Posted by Tex

Maybe you should read the rest of the section.

I have. What's your point? Are you saying that section in the D&C is or isn't about missionary work?

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by scottie

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?

Gotta disagree on this. The Mormon "death penalty" was the ONLY reason I didn't have sex with my girlfriend that I had all of freshman year. I was dating a girl at an all-girls' school with a funny (but understandable) rule--if you weren't off-campus by 1:00 am, you had to stay in the "guest room" on the dorm floor. And you had to be accompanied by your "host". Sort of an anti-HC, if you will.

Anyway, social pressure does work for some. Whether or not that's a good thing, or a good reason to be going on a mission, is another question.