Comments on: Guest Post: The Myth of Missionary Obedience

By: Kim Siever

Kim Siever — Thu, 29 Sep 2005 23:51:27 +0000

“Kim, sex is not a sin but fornication is. Fornication is sex outside of marriage.”

Which is precisely what I said.

By: Geoff J

Geoff J — Thu, 29 Sep 2005 23:35:00 +0000

Geoff, a non-member drinking a beer is still sinning, only to a lesser degree.

Wha… !!?? (Please tell me you are joking)

By: Steve EM

Steve EM — Thu, 29 Sep 2005 23:18:07 +0000

This is part of a debate that will never end between the “free agency and how to enforce it” BY wing of the church and the “we teach them correct principles and they govern themselves” JS wing. It’s part of the war in heaven that continues here.

I’ll pick JS over BY any day of the week.

Does BYU still keep a plaque of that famous JS quote in a dark hall in the basement of the admin building? That said it all about the place when I attended there.

By: Tim Jacob

Tim Jacob — Thu, 29 Sep 2005 22:34:19 +0000

All right. I didn’t want to have to discuss the whole “is breaking a mission rule a sin or not.” I still believe it is not in the classic sense.
Geoff, a non-member drinking a beer is still sinning, only to a lesser degree. It falls under the “greater light, greater condemnation” thing.
Kim, sex is not a sin but fornication is. Fornication is sex outside of marriage.
Another example, if a student at BYU grows a beard over the weekend (thus violating the honor code) is it a sin? Even if there is a student at U of U, who serves in the bishopric, and happens to have a bit of facial hair. IT IS NOT A SIN. I guess the nature of sin should be its own post.
Many of you argue this point to then discredit the entire theme of the post, which I guess is a valid thing to do.
BTW, Geoff, you just proved my point. Work and obedience goes hand in hand. But like I’ve said–THIS IS NEVER TAUGHT! What is taught is, “Obey every rule, call those that aren’t obedient to repentance, then you will have the spirit, and you will be successful.” They never say how mch work it truly is or exactly what the most effective way to work is. Those who adhere to the manuals and ,the manuals only, are WRONG. Manuals do not govern this Church–the Spirit does. Again, I only want to change the rhetoric.

By: Rusty

Rusty — Thu, 29 Sep 2005 22:18:28 +0000

Tim,
If your post had been worded like your last comment, I think most of us would agree. And I like that Benson quote, I referred to it all the time on the mission.

I wonder how many of the rules are made because of those few bad apples and how many are linked with doctrine (don’t be with other missionaries on P-day vs. don’t teach women without husband’s permission vs. don’t date). My friend was in a mission in which he wasn’t allowed to talk to a woman on the phone… at all, ever. This is ludicrous. Wait, I feel a post coming on…

By: Geoff J

Geoff J — Thu, 29 Sep 2005 22:12:50 +0000

Isn’t it a univeral mission rule to work? So therefore working hard is being obedient to mission rules. I don’t think you can separate work from the overall topic of obedience in the mission field as you appear to trying to do, Tim.

Therefore we get back to prioritizing obedience to mission rules…

By: Tim Jacob

Tim Jacob — Thu, 29 Sep 2005 21:59:16 +0000

Let me quickly say a few things. I’m not saying obedience isn’t important. IT IS. I don’t think mission rules are not important (except for maybe that p-day one). THEY ARE. And they should be obeyed as well as we possibly can.

All I am saying is that obedience is the only thing taught in the mission and especially the MTC, when the real key to the work is WORK. See my previous comment with Benson’s qoute–he says it all right there.

I just wish a mission leader would say, “Here are the mission rules. We expect you to follow these to the best of your abilities, but we do realize that nobody is perfect and we all make mistakes. So if you do happen to sleep in one morning, take a nap, etc., don’t worry about it and try a little harder next time. What I do expect from you is that you don’t waste a minute of thte Lord’s time and that when it is time to go to work, you do so with all your heart, might, mind and strength.”

My other problem is the mission leaders who tie obedience to the Spirit instead of the spirit of the work. Just because you were obedient doesn’t mean you (nobody specifically) were a good missionary.

By: Steve EM

Steve EM — Thu, 29 Sep 2005 21:27:26 +0000

Great post. Amen. Exact obedience generally makes for a poor missionary. Had a great mission in Western Europe. Found taught and baptized a good bit in a statistical mission hell hole. Worked hard, played hard, had a relaxed attitude and ignored any rule that thwarted the work. Most “arrows” weren’t at ease enough to developed rapport w/ people, rarely got referrals or baptized, and went home bitter having bought into the exact obedience crap.

If any still have a copy of “Drawing on the Powers of Heaven”, burn it and send the ashes w/ a note to some GA or MP still preaching exact obedience and destroying the faith of many in the process.

By: don

don — Thu, 29 Sep 2005 20:45:26 +0000

Don’t missionaires understand that when they go on a mission there will be rules to be obeyed? The rules will be different than the ones they are living under at school or at home.

Some rules may seem silly, like getting up at 6:00am (our mission) companion study, no swimming, don’t eat blood pudding or blood sausage, be in by 9 and in bed by 10 etc. So what if all of the rules seem silly! If I commit to go, then in that commitment should be I’ll obey the rules.

I question whether a missionary who has the attitude of willfully breaking the mission rules can have the spirit or not. There’s a big difference to having the spirit and having the spirit manifest itself to an investigator. The spirit doesn’t need you and I think in many cases it comes in spite of the missionary, it comes because the investigator is seeking it…not because some rule breaking hot dog has a great personality.

By: Kim Siever

Kim Siever — Thu, 29 Sep 2005 17:37:09 +0000

“If waking up at 7:00am isn’t a sin before or after your mission, it’s not a sin during your mission.”

Couldn’t someone use the same logic about sex: if it’s not a sin during marriage, it’s not a sin outside of marriage?