Follow us @WheatnTweet!
I Hope They Don’t Call Me on a Mission: Weekend Poll
By: wheatmeisterJune 30, 2012
Many have observed there is a real stigma in Mormon Culture for a young man who has not gone on a mission, yet in recent years, the bar has been raised so that fewer are going on missions. As you answer the following questions, ask yourself how you would feel if your son didn’t want to go on a mission for the reason listed or how you would feel if your daughter were dating a young man who hadn’t gone on a mission for that reason. Which choices do you feel are valid and which do you judge to be less valid?
Loading ...Discuss.
I have known disabled kids who served local service missions. Just FYI.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
9
We have an elder serving in our ward now whose father died about a year before he (the son) was hoping to go on a mission. His mother had never worked and he was the oldest child. So that’s “need to contribute to family finances” and “can’t afford to go” all in one. His ward embraced their family (and his mom found a job) and his mission is being 100% paid for by people in his home ward. He says it makes him work extra hard in the field out of gratitude and like he’s doing it not only for himself, because he really wanted to serve, but for those who are contributing to make his mission possible.
I really think that desire to serve (D&C 4) is the main thing, and the only one on that list that someone else can do for them is help pay for it. Can’t afford it but wants to go? That’s where the charity of a ward family can help. But doesn’t want to go, for any of these other reasons? Sorry – that’s up to a prospective missionary. A missionary who’s in the MTC or in the field and doesn’t want to be there & isn’t willing to be converted by the work – is a disaster.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
11
The kicker is this line: “why they CHOOSE not to go”. If they are CHOOSING not to go because they aren’t a virgin even though they are now chaste, then more power to them. If they are CHOOSING not to go because they are over 25, that’s fine, though I don’t see the relevance of that in their choice.
But it seems many of the items of the list are reasons they would choose not to go, and the others are reasons the church would not accept their choice to go.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
5
Though I would say EVERY eligible young man should (virtually: must) serve a mission, part of that eligibility is to have a testimony. If a lifetime of education (some would say indoctrination) and example in the household and at Church hasn’t proved sufficient, then the lad doesn’t get it.
If a young man has issues with homosexuality or other chastity problems, then he shouldn’t go until he gets straightened out.
Like this comment?
2
I chose them all, because I value the opportunity to choose so much. If that is the reason that someone doesn’t want to or can’t go, then that is the reason. Period. If we want to serve, we will find ways to do so and the church will help, with the exception of some local leaders who, I’m sure, want to apply undue pressure. I’m all about doing what we do with our whole heart and I find it sad that we get stuck in cultural habits that erode our sense of choice. I have a friend whose son has Asperger’s and it was significant enough that serving would have been hard for those who worked with him. He served an honorable service mission close to home. A boy in our ward who has been orphaned will serve with our support, as needed. Another boy returned home after a few weeks because a foreign mission was not his thing. Others have much support from family. The great equalizer is testimony. If we want to serve and others want to help make that possible, it will work in all situations.
Like this comment?
1
I know a young man with a very strong testimony, an active past of “missionary work” throughout his youth, no sins or other issues that would keep him from serving honorably, etc. He is the perfect example of someone who others would see as not just eligible but also obligated to serve – and most people would be shocked that he might not serve a full-time mission.
You see, he was instrumental in the conversion of his fiance – and, for reasons not needed to be listed here, she needs him in a real way that probably will keep him from serving a full-time mission. I know enough of the situation to support him fully and without reservation if he chooses to get married instead of serving a mission right now. (He’s 22 years old right now.)
I like Danny Ainge’s statement when asked about Jabari Parker serving a mission or not. (the Mormon basketball phenom who is the top amateur prospect in the nation right now, even though he just finished his junior year in high school) Bro. Ainge said:
“I believe every young man should prepare to serve a mission, but I don’t believe every young man should serve a mission.”
Bro. Ainge is a Bishop right now. That doesn’t give his view more authority, but it does say something about being able to be a local leader and recognize there are (varying numbers of) exceptions to every rule and that, ultimately, the decision has to be between the individual, his or her own conscience, and God.
Having said all that, I didn’t choose every option in the list simply because I believe some of them can be overcome in various ways – and, in the case of homosexuality, I see nothing in that situation, in and of itself in isolation, that should keep someone from serving a full-time mission.
Finally, the worst marriage advice I have heard in my entire life is, “Only date and marry returned missionaries.” That’s horrible advice for many reasons.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
20
Doesn’t want to go is a valid reason? I can’t believe so many voted for that. Bogus. Decent people do the right thing even if they don’t want to — otherwise, they’re not being decent. That’s a pretty basic standard, people.
The only reasons I accept are “doesn’t have a testimony”, has obligations that trump that of a mission (the family finance example), inability to serve, or a claim of inspiration that God is counseling him to do something different.
Like this comment?
1
“Decent people do the ‘right’ thing even if they don’t want to.”
So….you insinuate that going on a mission is the only right thing and that if in fact someone chooses not to do that then they are not a decent person…..
That is ridiculous – not everyone is meant to do the same things AND going on a mission is not the only way to be a missionary or to serve!
I am surprised more people did not choose same sex attraction. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think that should disqualify someone, but I do think it would make a mission more challenging, and I also think that if a missionary has same sex attraction, their companion should have a right to be aware of that because of the intimate living situation.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
9
the fact that people can be banned for mission service even if they repent (i was given a letter from the first presidency saying i will never be allowed to serve a mission) makes me think many of the Q12 dont really believe in forgiveness
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
10
…I also think that if a missionary has same sex attraction, their companion should have a right to be aware of that because of the intimate living situation.
First of all, KT, there is no such thing as “same sex attraction.” That phrase was invented by anti-gay evangelical groups, in an effort to both (a) deny that gay people actually exist, and (b) make homosexual orientation sound like a diagnosis/disorder. There is no such diagnosis. The term is offensive, in that it attempts to deny the personhood of gay men and lesbians.
That said, if a young man who happens to be gay chooses to serve an LDS mission, why do you believe his missionary companions “have a right to be aware?” Are you under the impression there’s a safety issue, as if gay men are unable to prevent themselves from violently raping nearby heterosexual males? Are you afraid “the gay” will “rub off” on the heterosexual missionary companion? If you feel that heterosexual missionaries need to be advised that their companion happens to be gay (and under LDS missionary/worthiness rules, celibate), do you also feel that the heterosexual missionary has “the right” to refuse to serve as companion to the gay missionary, “because of the intimate living situation?”
I won’t be able to return to see your reply until much later this evening, but I’m eager to see you explain yourself. Otherwise, your comment sounds outrageously homophobic, in the strictest sense of the word (i.e. fear of homosexual persons, if not outright disdain/hatred).
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
9
NICK: I used the phrase “same sex attraction” because the choice was “attracted to the same sex”. It is not a term that I would normally use, but I was going with the phrasing used in the choices. I’m sure you can understand that…
I am definitely NOT under the impression there is a safety issue, which is why I did not state that in my response.
It’s actually laughable to me that you called my response “outrageously homophobic”. Ever heard of the Gay 90s? Pretty popular club in the TC that I have been to several times with my gay guy friends. In other words, I’m definitely not homophobic.
As I said, it is because of the intimate living situation. Meaning: for me as an individual, if I were to be considering a living situation in which I was sharing a bedroom and close quarters, and basically a life with another person, it would matter to me the sexual orientation of the other person. There CAN BE a big difference between sharing living space with someone who is attracted to my gender and someone who is not. For example (this is one), if I knew that the person I was sharing a bedroom with was attracted to females, I would be very unlikely to change in front of that person whereas if that person was not attracted to my gender, I would be more likely to change in front of that person. Maybe it wouldn’t matter to some people, but it would to me. I would make different choices in my living situation.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
12
KT that sounds like discrimination unless you’re saying everyone has a right to know their companion is straight. “Hello Elders, and sisters, please fill out these forms and hand them over to your companion. You’ll see question #1 is your sexual orientation. Don’t lie. Everyone needs to know what their neighbor is attracted to.” Comes off as a bit intruding.
The biggest rub for me is Elders with girlfriends. I’m fine if there’s a girl you’re waiting for and you happen to meet her before your mission; but if you’re trying to maintain a serious long distant relationship while serving, the relationship can become a major time conflict. A conflict that most 19-20 year old men cannot manage.
Like this comment?
1
I’m with KT on this one. I would want to know and believe I would insist on greater privacy if I knew my body could turn on my companion.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
9
#12:NewlyHousewife,
Sorry__ but what the 19-20 male can’t handle is being dumped by the girl. I never heard of a “Dear Molly letter’.
Like this comment?
0
I guess I’m just bitter Bob when the last Elder I had at the house couldn’t stop talking about his girlfriend. I felt happy for him in regards to finding someone that makes him happy, but just get married and forget the mission already.
Like this comment?
1
#16:NewlyHousewife,’
Being dumped HURTS! I know few Elders that when not. We would gather all the pretty photos from the girls in the ward__mail the with “Sorry to hear this_please take your photos out and mail back the rest”.
Like this comment?
0
I’m with Nick. Growing up with LDS standards AND having attraction to men teaches one to discipline yourself adequately to pass through changing areas without reacting. My mission companions were all sufficiently modest by their own standards that they wouldn’t have needed to do anything differently if they did know that I was attracted to men. I was worthy to hold the TR I had throughout my entire mission. Besides, at the time, I wasn’t even sure what my attraction to men meant. Why would I want to be forced to categorize myself when it was not clear to me that I ‘had’ a category.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
5
Jaramiah, that was the most insightful thing I’ve read in a long time. Thank you so much for taking the moment to write that out. I understand so much better now and I really appreciate the tone of your response (you know, expecting your listener to be a reasonable person who will consider your perspective).
I don’t find homosexuality a barrier to missionary service for straight companions, but it would have seemed really difficult for gay missionaries, as I think most religious young people would feel awkward sharing quarters with a person of the sex to whom they are attracted.
Thanks again for commenting.
Like this comment?
1
I have to agree KT on this one, there is a big difference between being “homophobic” and just not being “homo”. In other words, no one is under the impression that a gay missionary would rape his companion, rather, the living arrangements would just make the issue sort of uncomfortable.
The corallary would be a hypothetical situation where non-married Elders and Sisters were made companions. If I had an attractive companion in such a situation, I couldn’t help but be attracted.
I would think a straight Elder ought to have the right to know whether his companion might be attracted. Nothing offensive about that.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
4
#19: Cowboy,
I don’t know what the rules are now. But in the 60s, I was NEVER to sleep in the same bed with my companion.
Like this comment?
1
Funny thing, but way back in the dark ages (85-87), I had about 11 missionary companions who never knew I was gay. They were never “informed” or “advised” of my sexual orientation, yet by some miracle, they all survived unscathed!
Of course, there WAS my very first missionary companion, my trainer. I looked him up a couple years ago, and found to my surprise that he’d come out of the closet just a few years after his mission ended. Neither of us knew the other was gay when we were serving as missionary companions. Now, I know this will be traumatic for those who are so concerned (read “afraid”) of being near a homosexual, but brace yourselves for a shock to your belief system…..Two gay men were both serving as LDS missionaries, serving as companions and living in the same apartment, and…..nothing happened!
But seriously, friends. There seems to be an assumption on the part of many straight men that every gay man wants your body. Sorry to wound your ego, gentlemen, but it’s just not true. Your precious virginity (let alone your masculinity) isn’t in danger by being in proximity to a gay man—ESPECIALLY a gay man who’se closeted and/or self-hating enough to want to play the LDS game.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
4
#19:
In other words, no one is under the impression that a gay missionary would rape his companion, rather, the living arrangements would just make the issue sort of uncomfortable.
Why, Cowboy? Do you ever work out at a gym? If you do, I guarantee you gay men have seen you naked. Do you obsess and feel “uncomfortable” about the possibility when you’re in the locker room? Or does the gym owe you the “right” to know that there might be one of those “homos” (as you called them) in the same room with you?
Like this comment?
0
This “right to know” thing is just odd. KT thinks a straight missionary has “the right to know.”
Blake opines “I would want to know and believe I would insist on greater privacy if I knew my body could turn on my companion.”
Cowboy claims: I would think a straight Elder ought to have the right to know whether his companion might be attracted.
Why would such a “right” exist? None of you have actually explained that, other than the suggestion of you being “uncomfortable.” Funny, but chances are you did have at least one gay missionary companion, and he may have even found you attractive. Did not knowing that make a difference? The discomfort and generally homophobic squeamishness you express wouldn’t even arise unless you were told that your missionary companion was gay! If you didn’t know your companion was gay, you wouldn’t be sitting across the room obsessing like a schoolgirl over whether or not your companion thought you were hot!
Do you want to know which straight men I find attractive? The ones who are secure enough to just say “thank you” and accept the compliment when they learn that a gay guy finds them attractive.
Like this comment?
2
Nick:
You’ve failed to address the example I gave of Elder and Sister missionaries. I see very little difference between these two scenario’s. Do I spend my time at the gym, or anywhere else for that matter, worrying about the possibility that a gay man might be watching me? Of course not. I have been perfectly outspoken in favor of gay rights Nick, as you are well aware. I also have friends and clients that are lesbian, and a few that were gay. They’ve been to my home, we’ve been to theirs, they’ve interacted with my kids, and I have with theirs, etc. I’ve never had much of a problem with being associated with gay people.
In reality, I could make the same arguments you are making, in a coed situation. If you placed an Elder and a Sister together, where at least one wasn’t attracted to the other, the liklihood is that nothing would happen. Still, it doesn’t change the fact that many would be uncomfortable with this. We can digress into a long conversation about the rationality of boundaries, etc, (anybody recall the conversations about nudism over at Mormon Matters a few years back??) but the fact remains, they exist, even if only as a social construct.
Now, it is absolutely possible that I had a companion who was gay, and that I never knew it. In that case, as I also suppose with the gym locker room, I’m fine operating under the principle of “out of sight, out of mind”. I am not suggesting that we force any kind of profiling. Still, as trends continue to change so that there will be less of a need or propensity to conceal one’s sexual identity, disclosure seems reasonable and polite.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
4
Nick – knowing that you wouldn’t automatically go for the likes of my toned, well-muscled physique just puts me at ease. Like all would-be “Draka”, I keep up with my “pankration”.
http://Www.en.wikipedia.org/The_Domination
Though I wouldn’t consider meet homosexual inclination to be a show-stopper, if a young fellow had indulged in this sort of thing, his situation should be well-scrutinized as the potential for harm is too high to casually dismissed.
I’m not aware of the behaviors that will preclude missionary service; one that I’m aware of is child sexual abuse, even if the perp is also a minor.
Like this comment?
0
Douglas, “toned, well-muscled physiques” aren’t the only attractive male bodies, and sometimes, even some men with “toned, well-muscled physiques” can be ugly to the core. That said, I have to wonder what “potential for harm” you refer to in the event that a gay missionary who wasn’t a virgin chose to serve a mission. I’m assuming, of course, that it wasn’t your intention with the subsequent sentence to somehow equate homosexuality with raping children.
Cowboy, I know you’re very outspoken on matters of equal civil rights for gays and lesbians, and I truly appreciate that. That said, I honestly think your above comments reflect a degree of fear and insecurity.
Your example of male/female hetero missionary companions really isn’t comparable, in that both have a potential attraction toward the other, so yes, “things could happen.” The more useful analogy, as I see it, would be a “Will and Grace” situation, with a gay elder and a straight sister. She might be attracted to him, but it’s extremely unlikely that “things could happen.” Short of a rape scenario (and we all know that rape is about power, not sex), a straight elder has nothing to seriously worry about from a gay companion.
In my own spiritual community, there are straight men who are well aware that one or more gay men in the community find them attractive, yet they also know that there’s no expectations coming from that, because of the fact that we respect all genders and orientations. Rather than getting uncomfortable with that knowledge, these men are able to simply appreciate the compliment. The result is a community where both gay and straight men can be honest and open-hearted with one another, even sharing friendly/brotherly physical affection in the form of hugs, etc.
Personally, I find that a lot more healthy than “OMG, that guy’s gay—he might find me hot, and that scares me!”
Like this comment?
0
Here’s another thought, and I sincerely just want to know some opinions:
A coworker of mine in college (in provo) was openly, some would say flamingly gay. I loved the guy- we all knew him as “gay eric” (and he embraced that title). He was obviously carrying some baggage from his experiences, but was a loving, open guy, albeit with an irreverent humor. He would openly talk about the first time he came out of the closet was on his mission, when he suspected his companion was gay. He and his companion were intimate many times. The rest of the mission looked up to them as a close-knit, spiritual, successful companionship they were.
I completely don’t condone what they did, but I’m trying to not judge either. I don’t have any solutions for the entire “gay on a mission” conundrum: I absolutely think they should be able to choose to go, but I don’t know how to address or alleviate some of the difficult situations that could arise.
Like this comment?
0
I suppose I didn’t actually ask my question: should we be concerned about two gay elders getting paired together, and the difficult situation that puts them in?
Like this comment?
0
If two gay elders are on the mission for the right reason, they will look at their companion as their ‘brother’ and not feel the situation as difficult. I would expect that every mission-worthy straight Elder should also be up to the hypothetical task of being able to stay in the same apartment as a ‘Sister’, if there was a situation for her safety that demanded it, and be able to ‘turn it off’.
As to the example of the two gay Elder’s being paired and becoming intimate, they will be accountable one day, not only for being intimate, but for the expectation that they would have been honest in all their dealings with their fellowmen (including their mission leaers). Nevertheless, I know of a man in my ward who is on Medicare and gets narcotic prescriptions under the pretense that they are for his wife, then gives them to his son, who does not have insurance. He attends the temple and looks at what he is doing as taking care of his family. Is one form of being dishonest with your fellowmen ‘worse’ than the other? I hope for mercy on all parties as I will one day be in need desparately of mercy.
As far as the outcome of the two gay missionaries who were intimate on their missionary, the fallout for the mission is not going to be as disastrous as was the straight missionary on my mission who snuck out at night while his companion was sleeping and cruised bars and became intimate with women of the community where he was serving.
I would suspect former Sister missionaries could describe catching Elders taking a glance at them in a way they knew meant that the Elder was attracted to them. If they can deal with that, I would think a straight Elder should not be significantly impacted from being observed by another Elder (who was closetly attracted to men) to have a nice ‘physical tabernacle’. The observing Elder in all likelihood made this observation momentarily then immediately shifted his attention back to the mission.
The lack of privacy in the MTC showers (in my time) created such situations to an exponentially greater degree than anything that happened in the field.
Like this comment?
1
[...] who did not serve have had better pro careers. Do you have any advice for Jabari? On top of the poll on Saturday, do you think Jabari should follow Bishop Ainge and not serve a [...]
Like this comment?
0
Doesn’t want to go is a valid reason?
I can’t think of a single reason more valid.
First, unwilling servants are a pain in the neck to work with and do more harm than good as ambassadors of Mormon peer pressure.
Second, this plan of happiness thing is ultimately a matter of self-selection, so why not accept an adult’s decision as valid, even while trying to influence it by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned rather than, say, badgering and browbeating?
Like this comment?
1
I don’t think we’re going to convince each other Nick. Perhaps there is something of an insecurity inherent in the issue, but not entirely. Still, there is a difference between functioning in a group with the knowledge that some people may be attracted to you, and another to placed in the kind of proximity that mission companions are. I can appreciate that some people may be bothered by this issue, even if it is insecurities.
The question you are getting at is whether I would be bothered. I don’t know, but I think it would depend more on the person than just the general acknowledgement that they were gay. I have two people in mind, one who is a good friend, and another who was a former client. I apologize if the stereotypes here seem unfair.
My friend is about as gay as a person can get, in that he has been in several committed relationships, and that he is very confident in himself and his identity. He is also very much, “one of the guy’s”, and we seem to get along great. I wouldn’t have a problem living with him as missionaries, roommates, whatever.
The former client friend of mine is far more effeminate, and a little less clear on boundaries. I acknowledge that being gay does not equate to being effeminate, but some (not necessarilly most) are. Admittedly, and you can call this an insecurity if you want, I struggle with how to interact with effeminate men. This isn’t a handicap that completely prevents me from being able to work or socialize with them. However, in a companion or roommate situation I would probably become much more irritable and less tolerant than people would hope.
Now as a disclaimer, I don’t know if I had any companion who secretely were gay, my guess is probably not. Even still, when I was asked by my Mission President what my greatest challenge on my mission was – I was clear that it was tolerating most of companions. In other words, I’m not the kind of person who likes to share space anyway’s. The forced companionships were the things I hated the most on mission anyway, and the issue of a gay companion wasn’t even a factor.
Like this comment?
2
yet by some miracle, they all survived unscathed! … I’d wondered what it took ;)
Like this comment?
0
#7 Martin, I’m assuming your comment is satirical. Having served with missionaries who didn’t want to be there, I can assure you there is little more destructive to the work than an unwillingness to serve.
That doesn’t mean we don’t ask our missionaries to do hard things, but the best missionaries serve willingly even if they are not completely comfortable doing so.
As the father of three sons who chose not to serve (each for his own reason, but in the end, each because he did not want to) I can tell you it is better for the missions and missionaries that they did not serve (not that anyone could have forced them!).
Like this comment?
1
#32 Cowboy:
Actually, the question I’m getting at is why you feel the heterosexual missionary has a “right” to know that his companion is gay. You say, along with others, that you’re not concerned about a potential for rape. You’re smart enough to know that you don’t “catch the gay” from being in close proximity to a gay person. So ultimately, I have to wonder just what the concern is actually about. I’m not trying to browbeat you over this, but seriously, what are you afraid will happen if a heterosexual missionary unknowingly has a gay companion?
The big joke, of course, is that homophobia is “the fear that gay men will treat straight men the way straight men treat women.”
Like this comment?
0
#35 Nick, I’m completely with you on this one — I can’t even imagine why this subject needs to come up between companions.
Like this comment?
1
I can’t imagine caring if one of my companions was a lesbian. For all I know, some may have been! We didn’t spend a lot of time pining over our personal lives. We had a purpose.
Like this comment?
1
For the love! How much more clear can it be?! “What the concern is actually about” is simply this: Someone who is attracted to your gender could potentially (read possibly) be looking at you AND/OR feeling about you in a different light than someone who is not attracted to your gender. Simple rules of attraction that exist on a daily basis between straight and gay alike! And for me, it would make all sorts of my daily life choices different, including in a missionary living situation! I would make similar choices with a straight member of the opposite sex plain and simple!
That’s it! It’s not about danger (rape), or it “rubbing off”! Stop trying to make it about discrimination when it’s not.
Like this comment?
3
That is where you miss the point, KT! Why does it matter? NOTHING is going to happen, except for YOU, in your own head, freaking out over the mere possibility that your missionary companion might find you attractive! Maybe you’re not even “all that and a bag of chips,” but you flatter yourself enough to justify a full scale phobic paranoia!
Hell, KT, the companion who claims to be heterosexual may be either deeply closeted, or so deeply in denial that they can’t even admit to THEMSELVES that they’re gay (like me at that age). Maybe you’d better ALWAYS expect that your companion finds you too hot for words, JUST IN CASE! :-)
Like this comment?
0
Yea, you’re right it is in my head, and frankly, that’s enough for me. But, here’s the thing – freakier things have been known to happen on missions. So, I’m certainly not going with your “nothing is going to happen”, because in life, there are no guarantees, except for death and taxes! :)
Like this comment?
1
“That is where you miss the point, KT! Why does it matter?”
OK, so I’m not as much addressing the ‘right to know’ issue, but I think there is a bit of a double-standard here. If being gay could be a barrier/struggle for someone thinking about a mission, then it CAN be an issue regarding missionary work, no? If we want to have compassion and support for those who may not feel they can serve because of SSA, then it seems to follow that there could be some difficult situations or struggles as a missionary that could present themselves, else we wouldn’t need to ‘be sensitive to’ that kind of ‘reason’ not to go in the first place.
Again, this to me is different from demanding that orientation be divulged, but I do think there is a bit of defensiveness going on that to me sort of undermines the ideas of the OP (as I understood it, anyway).
As for the poll, I think personal revelation is key, as is wise counsel and boundaries from church leaders. (There are expectations of physical, mental, and spiritual health that leaders can help individuals and parents sort through…and there are plenty of alternative opportunities to serve if a full-time, proselyting mission is not advisable.)
. …it’s not really fair to either the missionary or the mission president to send someone on a mission to ‘Missionaries should be prepared and should be physically and mentally able to handle the rigors of missionary work. Parents should not expect that lack of preparedness should be handed off onto mission presidents. But preparedness is
Like this comment?
1