The Utah Area Presidency is currently asking all adults ages 55-70 to serve at least two senior missions: “once in a service mission where [they] can live at home, and once on a mission where the Lord needs [them].” I was made aware of this in an email from my stake presidency a few weeks ago encouraging all stake members to view this devotional and share it with … well, EVERYONE. The email also emphasized the Church is in “great need” of couples to serve missions both from home and away from home. In this devotional, Kevin Schmutz (First Counselor in the Utah Area Presidency) asks every senior member in the area to serve a mission “at least” twice. Later in the same meeting, Kevin Pearson (Utah Area President) noted that Utah needs 2000 service missionaries and the worldwide Church needs 6000, noting that “Covid decimated the senior missionary force” and that the construction or renovation of 14 temples in the state of Utah alone call for the need for more service missionaries.
In another video clip, Kevin Pearson asks, “Will you prayerfully consider serving two missions? Not one, but two. A full-time proselyting mission if your health permits, and a service mission here in Utah as well.”
This really, really bothers me. Probably irrationally so. I’ve been thinking through why.
It is not that I am against missions.
I have extremely fond memories of the CES missionaries who served when I was an undergraduate at an east-coast university with very few fellow LDS students. They were like grandparents-away-from-home. I am grateful for their service.
I also have fond memories of senior missionaries that served in my own mission. They were a great strength to branches and also like second sets of parents for missionaries serving in a foreign place, especially when I served in areas that were far away from the center of the mission. One kind couple let me use their computer and internet to apply to law school from the absolute middle of nowhere in my second mission area.
I know people who have served medical missions and done wonderful things. I know people who served in refugee camps under extremely challenging circumstances. I admire that.
I also loved my own mission, even if I believe pretty differently than I did before.
My grandparents served a mission. They had a pretty terrible marriage, but they absolutely loved their mission and had the best years of their marriage during it. I love that they had that experience together. I love seeing the pictures. I’m sure the people they served loved them, because they were adorable.
So: let me be clear that I would never begrudge a person’s decision to spend their time serving in any capacity, and I honor their sacrifice.
Then what is it about this new initiative that irks me so? I think it represents some of the very worst parts of the LDS Church. Not the missionary service–but the request that senior couples serve not one, but two missions.
First, it represents the one-size-fits-all approach that the Church uses for just about everything.
Somehow, Church leaders have become convinced that whatever worked for them–or maybe didn’t even work for them, but they’ve been told by other Church leaders that it does–should work for every single member of the Church. A full-time mission for every male. Temple attendance for every person. Marriage (of the heterosexual variety) and children (as many as possible, and at the youngest possible age) for everyone. I could go on; the point is, I’ve been around long enough to know that there are many, MANY people for whom these supposed universal solutions do not work. The same applies for senior missionary service.
I don’t doubt that for many of these proposed solutions, leaders sincerely believe that members will benefit. (On this, however, given that the Church has not previously asked senior couples to serve two missions and the fact that it stands to benefit financially and otherwise from this ask, I am more skeptical.) Even still, it is ignorant and hubris to assume that the same things work for everybody or that a leader of large region of the Church knows what happens to be best for every single person in that region (most of whom he has never met).
In fact, I know several people for whom missions–including senior missions–were not at all great for them or their families. (You know, the families that Church leaders told them to have.) Some examples from my own circle:
- While I know some senior missionaries had great experiences, I also saw many struggle. It seemed that a lot of senior couples are (or at least were) assigned to places where the husband spoke the language, but not the wife. And it turns out that learning a language at age 55+ is just really not easy. So as I have spent time abroad (in my own mission and while living in other countries for stints), I’ve seen female senior missionaries who seemed pretty miserable: they felt useless and isolated, only there to tag along with their husband. I have a friend now who is serving in a country where she doesn’t speak the language but her husband does–and while she puts on a brave face, she doesn’t seem to be doing well at all.
- I also have seen a lot of resentment in kids whose parents abandoned them for senior missions during critical times–marriages, new babies, health problems, divorces. If their parents honestly just didn’t want to deal with their kids problems and so were running away from them, then I guess that’s their prerogative. But if the parents were serving a mission hoping that this would magically heal suffering family members, that bothers me. I am just not sure that someone going across the world to volunteer somewhere is actually better for their young adult or adult children or grandchildren than, you know, actually being there to support. Their children and grandchildren sure didn’t think so.
- I also know several people whose parents or grandparents served a mission or two, and then, very shortly after returning home, suffered serious health problems or died: one had an aneurysm and died literally the night she came home. One, after serving several missions (at her husband’s behest, she wasn’t as interested) and missing multiple grandbaby births and milestones, finally returned home only to develop rapid, early-onset dementia. These people spend their last healthy years away from their children and grandchildren, and I know many children who are angry about that.
- I know some who are angry about the “magical thinking” that sent their parents on missions during times they needed them. I know of one person who has suffered many health problems while her parents have served. She has turned a corner and is doing better. Her parents have credited this with their missionary service. She credits it to the many, many doctors’ appointments and treatments she has received while they were gone–for many of which her mother-in-law accompanied and supported her, because her mom wasn’t there to do so.
But again, I’m not going to begrudge any individual person or couple’s decision to serve a mission. That’s their choice. But I am going to view with extreme skepticism blanket requests from Church leaders that every senior member should serve at least two (let alone one) missions.
In fact, I’ll take that a step further. I think it is ecclesiastical abuse to pressure seniors to serve at least two missions, and premising that on a promise that doing so will bless their children and grandchildren more than their actually being present for those children and grandchildren is just plain dishonest. You certainly don’t hear examples like I shared above over the pulpit–Church leaders do not advise realistically about the risks and benefits of serving a senior mission.
Now, I know some will say that no one is being forced to serve two missions. That’s true, in the sense that no one is being physically forced. But I know enough people (including a former version of me) who would *not* have opted out. They simply don’t feel free to do so. I believe there are people who will, as a direct result of this request, will serve two missions despite that they don’t actually want to do it and that it might not actually be in the best interests of themselves and their families. But they’ll do it anyway.
I also know enough people with scrupulosity-type OCD to see how harmful these mandates can be. I remember watching a loved one spend sleepless night after sleepless night reading and re-reading the Book of Mormon to make sure they hadn’t accidentally skipped a word after being challenged by a prophet to read the entire book before the end of the year.
What Church leaders ask members to do can have an extremely outsized impact on their choices and even infringe their agency. As such, leaders should be extremely careful and thoughtful about what they ask members to do. They should be especially careful if what they are asking members to do takes them from their families during what may be the last healthy years of their lives, or puts them under financial stress by encouraging them to retire early to serve even if they may not be ready. I am certain that there will be senior couples for whom this is the case.
If people want to serve one or more senior missions, that’s terrific! If it’s their choice. But I think it is irresponsible, selfish, and abusive for senior Church leaders to create that expectation.
Second, this request is yet another example of a gazillionaire Church trying to get free labor from people for tasks the Church used to, and could still, employ and pay people to do.
These are tasks like: secretaries and administrative assistants, librarians, Deseret Industries & Bishop’s Storehouse workers, etc. Really, for any job imaginable, if you have professional skills the Church has no problem asking you to do it for them, for free–even if it pays other people to do the same thing. For example, I have a family member who worked for the Church as a technology professional. As he was approaching retirement, he offered to stay on part-time (they needed him, and he thought he’d enjoy still working a bit) but they told him they couldn’t–the Church would prefer he simply retire and then they’d call him on a mission to do his exact same job. Except for free. He declined.
Indeed, in some cases, I think it’s worse than distasteful–it’s destructive. I am aware of another couple who, in their sixties, are basically broke. They have no money saved for retirement. He is a talented handyman but he’s struggled to have steady work–especially as he’s aged, and during the economic downturn in 2008 when they basically lost everything. The Church asked him to be a service missionary providing–you guessed it–free handyman and repair and construction services. What’s sad about this is that he would love to do this, but he literally cannot afford it because they are barely getting by with both of them working. So he feels ashamed and guilty for having to say no. In this case, not only is the Church missing an opportunity to provide a good and loyal man dignified, paid work for which he is well-qualified and desperately needs, but they are making him feel inadequate and guilty in the process by asking him to do that work for free when he is in no position to do so. This is tremendously unchristlike
I also have a friend whose parents served in a Church campsite. It was backbreaking labor for an older couple, and they suffered health problems as a result. Remember: people pay to use Church campsites. So the Church took advantage of a senior couple to perform difficult labor all day every day for 18 months while they collected dues from the people who used the property. This is simply not the kind of work I think it’s appropriate for the Church to ask people to do for free.
Third, this request bothers me because it is yet another example of the Church’s consistent refusal to look inward and address its own role in a problem it’s facing and instead to play the blame and shame game with members.
The Church is clearly facing a crisis when it comes to missionaries. They don’t have enough senior missionaries, and they don’t have enough young missionaries. Not only that, but they are on a temple building spree that seems totally disconnected with reality and they are building temples they seem unable to staff. They have also turned many positions that they used to employ paid workers for into “missionary” roles.
Rather than looking inward and asking themselves, “What may we need to change about missionary service to make it more appealing to people in the third decade of the 21st century, with the family structures and economic outlooks people face right now?” they are instead looking outward and guilting people into serving missions. This makes me angry. It is manipulative. It is taking advantage of people who want to do the right thing, and will feel obligated to serve even if they do not want to and even to the detriment of their own health and families.
I am not a perfect person but if there’s one thing I feel really strongly about, and am pretty good at myself, it’s taking responsibility for mistakes I make and things I need to improve on. If I see that something is not working, I try very hard not to blame others. I look at what I’ve contributed to a problem and what I can change.
I see no evidence of the Church doing this. Their missionary program is shrinking. Their people are becoming disengaged. Instead of looking at amazing suggestions for how to revitalize missionary work and make it more appealing to people, they are blaming their membership. We don’t have enough faith. We need to do more, more, more. We don’t need to just serve one mission but AT LEAST two.
Fourth, and for me, most importantly: I am so, so, so fed up with being told by Church leaders that I’m not doing enough.
None of us will ever be enough for the Church. One senior mission (which the Church has been encouraging people to do for as long as I can remember) isn’t good enough anymore–two is. Just a few weeks before I received the mission email from my stake presidency, I received another email asking us to attend the temple MORE: more attendance, more indexing, more family history, more temple-related activities. More.
And yes, for people who worked their whole lives, who raised families and who did their church callings and who saved for retirement, that is simply not enough. You are not allowed to rest. You need to serve two missions.
I may be more sensitive about this than others, but I have spent several years trying to unlearn the message that I can never be enough, that there is always more I need to do to be acceptable to other people and to God, that rest is shameful and bad. I simply cannot feel that I’m enough (which I think God wants us to feel) when some priesthood leader who doesn’t know me is constantly in my ear telling me to do MORE.
I’m fed up with it. To the Utah Area Presidency I say, NO. MORE.
Questions:
- Have you heard the two-mission guidelines? Is this unique to Utah? What are you seeing about senior missions in your part of the world?
- What are some of the pros and cons that you’ve seen of senior missions? What do you think people should consider in making this decision? Do you think the Church provides people with ample space to make these decisions? Do you think bishops would counsel people for whom service may NOT be in their best interest not to serve? Or do you think bishops are being asked and will pressure people to serve regardless of circumstances?
- I identified four characteristics this ask highlights for me–do you agree? Do you see other areas where the Church exemplifies these characteristics?
- What impact do you think this will have on senior couples?
Wheat & Tares 
I understand the anger but all of this behavior by the church, to me, demonstrates how out of touch our senior leaders are more than anything. I think they are really, really out of touch. I don’t think they are trying to hurt people I think they just do not understand peoples experiences.
I think if they want more missionary service they would be wise to ask for a revelation that reveals a path to salvation for LGBTQ folks.
It’s really hard for family of LGBTQ people to justify totally devoting time, energy and money to a church that makes LGBTQ people so less than, designated as sinful, when so much of these issues are inborn differences.
They might be surprised at the difference this would make… What’s the point of spreading the gospel if it doesn’t seem applicable to the person you are talking to or say to your child or other family member who is LGBTQ. It takes all the wind out of your sails, and it affects more people than anyone realizes because people aren’t free to talk about family members that don’t feel safe to be fully out in their communities
@lws, totally. I think it’s hard for a lot of queer kids to have parents who are still active in the Church but they reach a friendly detente about it. But to have parents actually full on go serve a mission would be next level and, I think, quite hurtful to queer kids.
The article raises good questions. Thank you.
As fewer people have pensions in retirement, fewer people will be able to serve senior missions. I see no way to change that.
Because I no longer have a wife, I am unwelcome for a senior mission. An unmarried, divorced, or widowed woman may serve (if she can afford it), but I cannot (and I can afford it). My own church won’t have me. I volunteered and was accepted for the Peace Corps, but that was right when the pandemic hit and Peace Corps shut down.
Again, the article raises good questions. I am troubled by persons below the President of the Church issuing calls and challenges — I cannot say yes to every church leader, and every church leader cannot issue calls or challenges in the name of the Lord.
I am so thankful that as a former TBM / RM who came from a TBM family and raised my family in the Church until recently, I somehow avoided having to send my son (now 20) on a mission. I’m also thankful that my parents (seniors) did not go on a mission and will not at this point due to health and age. I somehow got lucky to avoid having to watch the generation before me or after me serving an LDS mission.
I feel really sorry for you non-believers who have to see kids or parents go due to the current messaging coming from Pearson, etc. Unfortunately there are teenagers and seniors who hear this messaging and feel absolutely obligated. So sad.
@Elisa, I couldn’t agree more with every word you have written. Here are a few thoughts with your questions in mind, but first I have to fire a missile at Kevin Pearson because I think he is distrustful, even dangerous.
*Kevin Pearson lacks empathy and gaslights like few living GAs are capable of doing. He seems to routinely make policy and doctrinal assertions that lack precedent. He is also another one of our arrogant, ladder-climbing, millionaire, CEO GAs. (I know that is harsh and I’m not trying to be bombastic; I think it’s true.) This is the same man who spoke forcefully (almost yelling) at an audience of young men and their leaders in the Alpine Tabernacle and told them they covenanted at baptism to serve a full-time mission so there was no need for them to pray about serving–they had already made their decision, so stop praying about serving a mission! To drive his point home, he used as his primary example how tithing is negatively impacted by not serving a mission. Not souls blessed. Not those transformed by the gospel of the Savior…but how tithing receipts are impacted. Pearson was the CEO of a healthcare analytics company–I guess when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. The fact it is coming from Pearson is my first red flag. The second is that I believe he may be the end of the whip in the Dallin Oaks–>Clark Gilbert–>Kevin Pearson troika (which also involves CES and the Ecclesiastical Clearance Office firings and all of the shady work going on there).
*Elisa, your examples of the pros and cons of senior missions is pretty fulsome and more or less matches my own observations and some of my experiences. For the last six months of my mission, I was assigned to the highest levels of mission leadership and was able to see how our senior couples were really doing. Some thrived while others struggled. Luckily, my mission president told our seniors (we had around 12-14 couples) to work the hours they felt comfortable working, to take days off as they needed them, to watch TV if they wanted, and to call home to children and grandkids as often as they liked. A few went back early, and my MP went to great lengths to tell them they had served honorably and to return with the satisfaction the Lord had accepted their service. My MP displayed softness, flexibility and patience with our senior missionary couples. This deeply moved me. I loved my MP for these reasons and others. He was an exceptional human being. When the cramdown starts from people like Pearson, I’m fearful the kind of independent leadership my MP displayed toward our senior missionary couples could be lost.
*In every stake in which I have lived, I have never heard my bishop or stake president give a blanket mandate for senior missionary service. Quite the opposite, they seemed always to be patient, understanding that senior missions are individual decisions and the decision to serve can be complicated. I had stake presidents who, from the pulpit, would gently encourage senior couples to contemplate and pray about service, and they almost always said that the couples could choose the kind of service that fit them, and for durations from 12 months, 18 months or up to 24 months. My neighbors from 10 years ago, some of the most wonderful people I know, served two, twelve month missions stateside as office staff. On the second, they came home two months early. Her health had declined and they delayed seeking medical care until they got back to Utah. She was diagnosed with stage 3 cancer. Luckily, their mission president told them to pack and leave after it was obvious antibiotics were not helping her. (I’m thrilled to say she beat the cancer–thanks for the Huntsman Cancer Center–and is still living today.) My point here is in our advanced years, the risks increase and I’m disappointed Pearson didn’t focus more on what the church is changing to better facilitate senior service, and what the church is doing to minimize the negative impact to other family members, grandchildren and what kind of healthcare would be guaranteed. Why not provide health insurance for those who lack it? Why not pay for plane tickets for the seniors to return at six month intervals for a month? There is so much the church could do to increase the number of those servicing and their effectiveness if the church would choose to be imaginative. Why not pay for their housing and give them a monthly living stipend? Again, my fear here is when the cramdown starts, the compassionate hand my stake presidents applied when working with seniors in the past could be subjugated and more pressure applied to seniors to serve. We can’t put institutional needs ahead of the welfare of our senior members. Pearson tends to speak in unqualified terms, making it hard for those who hear him not to feel guilt and shame if they choose not to follow his demands. This is morally wrong.
*Lastly, I can’t believe we are seeing the kind of doubling down, hardlining and retrenchment Pearson represents. It makes me want to mail him a copy of economist Tyler Cowen’s booklet, “The Great Stagnation” (yes I believe in democratic capitalism but I am not a libertarian…in case you are wondering) with a question written on the inside, “Where is the church’s innovation?! We are stagnating and nothing inventive is being done.” Elder Pearson…we are struggling as a church. Temple overbuilding has created a number of negative unintended consequences–and now you want the church’s seniors to bail you out for bad decisions the church has made. Our leaders seem not to hold themselves accountable, and seem not to be able to have open, honest conversations about the challenges the church faces and why. Continuing to ask for more and more from its members and expecting something different seems foolish.
When we moved to Utah 10 years ago, I was shocked how many young families relied on grandparents to provide free childcare. The folks that are prime targets for senior missions are sandwiched between helping adult children as well as elderly parents. Add to that economic uncertainties pushing back retirement, and you’re putting people in a bad spot. When I watched the senior missionary fireside, their focus on numbers was interesting and a little disturbing. We’ve got X number of senior couples with no dependents in their households in the Utah area. We’re gonna need Y number just to fill existing vacancies, and an additional Z number of people to staff all the temples coming into operation in the Utah area. What was weird was them trying to butter up the seniors, telling them how the Utah area provided the core strength of the Church, how much more useful seniors were than the teenagers. That the main purpose of the young elders & sisters was personal conversion and training future church leaders, while the senior missionaries were out there doing the *real* work. It felt like pandering, especially since I’m aware of several women who were in the situation of feeling completely useless when they were called with their husbands to a foreign country with no knowledge of the language. They were just appendages–it was the husband that was necessary because of his language and/or professional expertise. Why bother wasting a couple if you only have use for one person? (This is where allowing older men without a wife to serve missions would come in real handy, btw.)
My mom served a part-time service mission, and it was fantastic for her in the decade following my dad’s death. But she also became fed up by the Church trying to use missionaries to replace professionally-trained genealogists at the Family History Library. To her, it was asking way too much of the service missionaries with what seemed to be a purely economic motive.
I’m a “just say no” kind of guy, and the church would not extend a call to me anyway (now all public information by way of my recent booK). I don’t feel personally challenged. But I find this exploration of why you (Elisa) do very interesting. In that way, good work.
I would add or emphasize two things:
1. Almost everybody who calls people or asks people to step up to a senior mission has served but in a “president” capacity. As a mission president or temple president or stake president or all three. Sorting through my friends who have been senior missionaries, the experience is very different. I wish there were a few more miles walked in those shoes, on the part of the men extending the calls.
2. I’ve seen dramatic differences between the two experiences when a couple serves. It’s not one way, either. Matters of enthusiasm. Matters of health. Matters of responsibility connected to our divergent from professional experience. I’m not sure I can judge generations correctly, but I think there’s coming a time and maybe we’re already there when either party in a couple will exert a veto over a senior mission. When it will take two strong and independent “yes” answers to go, and only one reluctant person to nix the whole idea. [Elisa, I would guess you are part of that generation. Maybe add this to your list.]
@ji, such a weird policy. I’m sorry you can’t serve.
@josh h, dodged a bullet! I really feel for people who go through a faith transition while their own kids are serving.
@bigsky, I’ve heard a lot of negative things about Pearson but I couldn’t really figure out why – other than him being CEO of a fairly shady company. The alpine talk is horrific. “It is the evil spirit that teacheth a man not to pray” is a scripture that comes to mind. I totally agree with your concerns about how local leaders will fill pressures to respond, especially because I imagine they will get some form of quota they are meant to fill (even if it’s not called that …).
@maryann, agree agree on women missionaries.
As for adults caring for grandkids – like, I don’t expect people to do that. And maybe some folks are trying to *escape* needy children by leaving on a mission. But if that’s the case, fleeing for a mission seems like an immature response. Instead, maybe these adults need to communicate and set boundaries with their kids rather than using a mission as an excuse to escape.
I think the call for seniors to serve two missions is aimed primarily at those seniors who have already served a senior mission, and would like to do it again.
There seems to be an LDS demographic of retirees (mostly those with deep pocket financial security), who genuinely like the idea of serving senior missions. For some, I imagine, the experience could be a bit like a senior honeymoon…
@Travis, that is simply not what the plain text of the videos is saying.
They are saying, unequivocally, to the entire state of Utah: every senior should serve two missions.
If they were targeting the demographic you’re talking about, why would they give this messaging to the entire state of Utah? Do people who genuinely like the idea of serving senior missions need to be told to serve two? Nothing prevents them from serving a second. I know plenty who served two or more.
Why not encourage senior missionaries (if they are so inclined) to develop their own program and the Church partially support it? The Church leaders are too focused on control. For example, if you have construction skills and want to go Rwanda, why can’t the Church assist you? Or if you have medical skills and want to go Cambodia, why not help facilitate the dream? Why not allow more flexibility in the way senior missionaries serve, more time off to return home to visit grandchildren? The world is full of great opportunities.
Well-articulated, Elisa. Very interesting to read.
I’m appalled too at the way the Church doubles down when the numbers start dropping to pressure members into taking on more responsibilities without making those responsibilities any easier. Serving a senior mission is a class thing and always has been – you have to be wealthy enough to be able to travel during retirement and pay your own expenses. Anyone who has struggled financially (like the handyman you talked about) is shut out of senior missionary opportunities.
Imagine what it would do for seniors living in poverty if they could get a wage and health insurance from the Richest Church on Earth. I am totally on board with the criticism of the Church trying to get free labor out of people. Pay for what you need, especially if it’s specialized knowledge gained from years in the workforce.
I had a friend who worked at the Church Office Building years ago. She said it was common for an older employee to have a retirement party on a Friday, then show back up for work on Monday, wearing a missionary badge, to do the same thing for free that they used to get paid for. Not my idea of a great retirement, but to each his own, I guess.
I was thrilled when my parents chose to serve a senior mission. Words cannot express how excited I was to have my parents leave the country for two whole years. I cried when they came home after only 18 months. Of course, I don’t like my parents. If your kids *want* you to go on a mission, then maybe you should. I figured the way the Lord blesses the children and grandchildren that senior missionaries leave behind is to give them some breathing room from the older generation and chance to get out from under their thumb and take a vacation from their constant presence. Those stories about people who actually want their parents and grandparents around are very heartwarming and I’m glad situations like that are probably more common than my situation.
In the past decade or so, the dialogue about turning down callings has changed some. More people are realizing that they can say no. I hope that carries over to senior missions. A part-time service opportunity might be a real blessing for a retired couple. It gets you out of the house, keeps you busy and contributing, and gives you a sense of purpose. But if its pressure, or if one person doesn’t want to go, then yeah, don’t go.
In my mission, we had a senior couple with the opposite dynamic of involved husband and wife without much to do. The wife was the mission nurse. The first mission pres had the husband working in the office. The new mission pres basically demoted him, and after that he was depressed and bored while his wife was busy being the nurse. Mismatched workloads cause problems.
The Church is really twisting arms about missionary service. Pres Nelson has done away with Pres Hinckley’s raised bar and made it mandatory for all young men again, and now this focus on doubling up on senior missionaries.
@chris, I think you’re right that it takes two yes’s. Actually, though, I see this as simply adding to already-existing tensions in mixed-faith or even just mixed-enthusiasm marriages. One spouse may resent the other for preventing them from fulfilling their two-mission duty. Or may pressure heavily the other to relent.
Just another example of the church inserting itself into what should be very personal decisions between spouses and creating potential division and resentment.
I think economic reality will lead to an ever reduction in senior missionaries, at least among the so called middle class.
@jc, people who put 10% of their income towards retirement instead of giving it to an obscenely wealthy Church might have more flexibility to serve a mission come retirement age!
I live outside Utah and have not heard any mention of encouraging seniors to serve two senior missions, but we did have a 5th Sunday lesson a few months ago that really tried to hammer in on the seniors to serve at least one. (We have very few youth so they probably thought they were better off chastising the seniors vs the one youth of mission age.) The senior couple serving in our ward at the time (from Utah, obvs) implored us all to do everything we could to retire early so we could serve and I just wanted to laugh because most of my cohort (late 30s/early 40s) are never going to get to retire. We’re totally screwed, economically. Maybe I would have had more to set aside for retirement if I hadn’t also been paying 10% of my income to the church. It just leaves such a sour taste in my mouth.
Agree with everything in the post. Well said! My first thought was 55-70?? Most people I know in that age group are still working and are in their peak earning years. I will barely be an empty-nester when I reach that age bracket. No way will I give up my freedom to the church. Also, I love my career and fully intended to still be working at 70.
Elisa – your thoughts resonate with me very deeply. So much of what you’ve listed aligns with the organizational leadership principles that I teach.
The top leaders absolutely have what the Arbinger Institute calls an inward mindset – they are very self-centered as an organization. The brand reputation and goals /results matter more than the individual members. I know this through my personal experiences and from their policies & systems (indirect leadership behaviors). They see members as objects or things because they fail to see and honor all 4 human dimensions – spiritual, emotional, psychological, and physical. Ignoring these dehumanizes people, period. They don’t see people with limitations, challenges, needs, unique situations, preferences, goals, etc. If they did, they would ask, not demand missionary service – including the traditional one for young men.
I agree with the one size fits all analogy – any business person knows that market segments exist in both external and internal markets. I developed OCD on my mission and should have come home but was too afraid of what God would think or what members would assume. These ‘prophets’ (profits) need to see that they carry tremendous power and authority – that young people believe they speak for God and many are afraid to disobey leaders. Leaders should be developing followers; encouraging them to think and act for themselves instead of ‘being acted upon’ by the fear instilled by the same leaders. This is coercion. Many young people truly believe they will somehow ruin their chances in the afterlife if they disobey; they equate leaders’ requests with commandments. I feared going to Hell if I didn’t go because Spenser Works Kimbal, the champion of the impossible gospel and king of discouragement, said all young men should serve – except Steve Young, BYU quarterback who told his Bishop he has separation anxiety being away from his family – so the Bishop said it was ok to stay home.
The top leaders don’t introspect or examine the harm they do to members. Just listen to the Mormon Stories podcast and look at all the research being done at BYU’s Religious Studies department regarding legalism and mental health – that grace has a powerful impact on mental health and the LDS legalistic, earn your way to the top of Heaven’s towers, creates perfectionism, anxiety, shame, OCD, and depression.
No one can do enough or be enough in that religion – you are never appreciated and often not blessed.
Since LDS, Inc. does not want to pay for any services, that’s all the more reason to make requests with humility and understanding many won’t go and should never feel guilt or shame. Use some tithing money to pay people if they need more people. It’s time for members to stop being so freakin’ codependent with the church and its addicted leaders- they are addicted to power, recognition, growth, and being Wizards of OZ.
Never doing enough – well yes, from a legalist’s perspective that is true! This is the elephant members often miss – that the entire system is built on work, work, and performance! Performance-based worth, not intrinsic worth. The leaders need to at least discuss grace as much as Brad Wilcox the manipulative youth leader who shames young men into compliance and calls them stupid. It wasn’t until I started looking at other Christian churches that I saw how starving I was for grace and that the LDS church only gives it lip service.
Obedience is the top value in LDS culture – that’s a red flag. Just submit to leaders who make mistakes. Bring everything down to behavior and then spiritualize disobedience – you must have lost the spirit – instead of you are emotionally and physically exhausted or ill. Obedience motivated by external punishment or rewards breeds fear. If love/charity was the highest value, and members were allowed to use their agency without guilt, fear, shame, or other manipulative tactics, they might choose to do good for their own sake!! Then they would enjoy the experience much more because of the internal motivation – love – not out of obligation and duty or fear of some kind of punishment or loss.
Finally, I just look at the faces and nonverbal expressions of these top leaders and see very tired old men who are on autopilot and indoctrinated themselves. I absolutely DO NOT see peaceful, joyful, inspiring servant leaders who sincerely care about the needs and development of members. They only care about the organization. I don’t see men who constantly preach Christ and His unearned gift of grace! Grace covers all sin if we have faith and seek Christ; to appreciate His gift that does not require tithing, temple, or other demands made by authoritarian leaders. I just don’t see Christ when I see or hear these men. I see intellectualization, threats, rationalizing, and talk of love – but I don’t feel sincere love and care about us. Just pretending.
Members – take back the power you gave away; the very power God gave to you. If you don’t want to filter all these leaders do through Christ’s life and example, at least become ‘principle-centers’ as Stephen R. Covey counseled in The 7 Habits of Highly Effective people – he was ‘up there’in the church and much smarter/wiser about leadership then any of those guys. Covey said we should see all externalities such as people, church, pleasure, money, work, self, spouse, etc. through the ‘principles’ filter – we should NOT filter everything in life through the church center. This is a social org. with rules and expectations that are not always driven by principles but instead they are driven by selfish interests.
Say no to missions unless you are paid or just say no in order to say yes to what really matters in your lives!
Elisa – your thoughts resonate with me very deeply. So much of what you’ve listed aligns with the organizational leadership principles that I teach.
The top leaders absolutely have what the Arbinger Institute calls an inward mindset – they are very self-centered as an organization. The brand reputation and goals /results matter more than the individual members. I know this through my personal experiences and from their policies & systems (indirect leadership behaviors). They see members as objects or things because they fail to see and honor all 4 human dimensions – spiritual, emotional, psychological, and physical. Ignoring these dehumanizes people, period. They don’t see people with limitations, challenges, needs, unique situations, preferences, goals, etc. If they did, they would ask, not demand missionary service – including the traditional one for young men.
I agree with the one size fits all analogy – any business person knows that market segments exist in both external and internal markets. I developed OCD on my mission and should have come home but was too afraid of what God would think or what members would assume. These ‘prophets’ (profits) need to see that they carry tremendous power and authority – that young people believe they speak for God and many are afraid to disobey leaders. Leaders should be developing followers; encouraging them to think and act for themselves instead of ‘being acted upon’ by the fear instilled by the same leaders. This is coercion. Many young people truly believe they will somehow ruin their chances in the afterlife if they disobey; they equate leaders’ requests with commandments. I feared going to Hell if I didn’t go because Spenser Works Kimbal, the champion of the impossible gospel and king of discouragement, said all young men should serve – except Steve Young, BYU quarterback who told his Bishop he has separation anxiety being away from his family – so the Bishop said it was ok to stay home.
The top leaders don’t introspect or examine the harm they do to members. Just listen to the Mormon Stories podcast and look at all the research being done at BYU’s Religious Studies department regarding legalism and mental health – that grace has a powerful impact on mental health and the LDS legalistic, earn your way to the top of Heaven’s towers, creates perfectionism, anxiety, shame, OCD, and depression.
No one can do enough or be enough in that religion – you are never appreciated and often not blessed.
Since LDS, Inc. does not want to pay for any services, that’s all the more reason to make requests with humility and understanding many won’t go and should never feel guilt or shame. Use some tithing money to pay people if they need more people. It’s time for members to stop being so freakin’ codependent with the church and its addicted leaders- they are addicted to power, recognition, growth, and being Wizards of OZ.
Never doing enough – well yes, from a legalist’s perspective that is true! This is the elephant members often miss – that the entire system is built on work, work, and performance! Performance-based worth, not intrinsic worth. The leaders need to at least discuss grace as much as Brad Wilcox the manipulative youth leader who shames young men into compliance and calls them stupid. It wasn’t until I started looking at other Christian churches that I saw how starving I was for grace and that the LDS church only gives it lip service.
Obedience is the top value in LDS culture – that’s a red flag. Just submit to leaders who make mistakes. Bring everything down to behavior and then spiritualize disobedience – you must have lost the spirit – instead of you are emotionally and physically exhausted or ill. Obedience motivated by external punishment or rewards breeds fear. If love/charity was the highest value, and members were allowed to use their agency without guilt, fear, shame, or other manipulative tactics, they might choose to do good for their own sake!! Then they would enjoy the experience much more because of the internal motivation – love – not out of obligation and duty or fear of some kind of punishment or loss.
Finally, I just look at the faces and nonverbal expressions of these top leaders and see very tired old men who are on autopilot and indoctrinated themselves. I absolutely DO NOT see peaceful, joyful, inspiring servant leaders who sincerely care about the needs and development of members. They only care about the organization. I don’t see men who constantly preach Christ and His unearned gift of grace! Grace covers all sin if we have faith and seek Christ; to appreciate His gift that does not require tithing, temple, or other demands made by authoritarian leaders. I just don’t see Christ when I see or hear these men. I see intellectualization, threats, rationalizing, and talk of love – but I don’t feel sincere love and care about us. Just pretending.
Members – take back the power you gave away; the very power God gave to you. If you don’t want to filter all these leaders do through Christ’s life and example, at least become ‘principle-centers’ as Stephen R. Covey counseled in The 7 Habits of Highly Effective people – he was ‘up there’in the church and much smarter/wiser about leadership then any of those guys. Covey said we should see all externalities such as people, church, pleasure, money, work, self, spouse, etc. through the ‘principles’ filter – we should NOT filter everything in life through the church center. This is a social org. with rules and expectations that are not always driven by principles but instead they are driven by selfish interests.
Say no to missions unless you are paid or just say no in order to say yes to what really matters in your lives!
I know that my spouse is interested in serving a senior mission. I have told them that I want to “make a difference” as a senior as long as my health holds up. I would probably be fine with “making a difference” by serving an LDS senior mission if there was actually a mission opportunity that fit my definition of making a difference. I’m honestly not sure if the LDS Church has many (or any) such positions. I’ve made it clear to my spouse the sorts of things that I don’t consider making enough of a difference, so I wouldn’t be willing to do these things as a senior missionary:
1. Serving in any temple. The only thing I find remotely positive to me about the temple are live marriage sealings. I find zero value in the endowment ceremony, and I don’t believe that an omnipotent God requires dead people to have living people perform ordinances (baptism, confirmation, endowment, sealing, etc.) for them. It all just seems like such a waste of time and money to me–it’s definitely not “making a difference” in my mind.
2. Serving in any proselyting mission. Even though I have a kid going on a mission in a few months, I personally don’t want to be involved in a proselyting mission again, at least not the way the Church runs these missions. The way the Church proselytizes is just so incredibly inefficient. I realize that I wouldn’t likely be responsible for knocking on doors myself, and I likely would just be doing work to support the young missionaries, but still, I’d just be supporting an incredibly inefficient missionary program.
3. Church Office Building jobs. I guess it would depend on specifics, but I suspect that I really wouldn’t feel I was making a difference in most, if not all, jobs in the Church Office Building. I actually had a reason to visit the Church Office Building in an official capacity a few weeks ago. I parked in the garage under the Conference Center, walked through the Conference Center, crossed the street, and entered the Church Office Building, registered with security, and took the elevator up for my appointment. I must have passed at least 10 senior missionaries and 4 young missionaries on that short walk. They were just manning desks as either guides or receptionists. No, thank you.
4. Serving at a Visitor Center (Church historical sites). I really don’t see how I’d feel like I was making a difference at one of these sites.
5. Supporting a ward/branch in an area where the Church is new/weak. This honestly might be kind of interesting to me in some ways. Unfortunately, I’m not all that enthusiastic about what the Church is offering people week in and week out right now, though.
How would I like to “make a difference”? I’d like to be involved in something that I felt was truly making the world a better place: healing the sick, feeding the poor, educating those who otherwise might not be educated, helping victims of violence, working against authoritarian governments, helping prevent malaria in countries where malaria is rampant–things like that.
My aunt and uncle were called on a senior mission to a 3rd world country in southeast Asia. My uncle was a dentist, and the Church sent him to this country to just work at a dental school to instruct the dental students in modern dental techniques. I’m not really sure what my aunt did on that mission, but she didn’t seem to complain. In fact, she talked my uncle into serving 5 total missions (the others were more like the kind I listed above that I don’t want to do). This dental mission is really one of the only missions I’ve heard of seniors called to that would fit my definition of “making a difference”. I could see myself signing up for that mission if I were a dentist.
My spouse and I both have (very different) professional skills that could be very useful in “making a difference” in the world. I’ll admit that I really haven’t researched what opportunities the Church is offering right now, but all I seem to hear about are the types of missions I listed above as unappealing to me. I suspect that my spouse will start asking about serving a senior mission as we near retirement. I’m just not sure that the Church is offering any opportunities that fit my desire to “make a difference”. We may need to find our own way to make a difference outside of the Church organization.
It doesn’t really matter to me personally what Pearson or any Church leader demands these days. I make my own decisions, and honestly, strongly worded demands like Pearson made just make it less likely for me to do whatever he is demanding. A much softer approach of inviting people and informing them of the opportunities available would work much better on someone like me. If my spouse and I are called into the bishop’s office for a pitch on senior missions, it will have no effect on what I do–other than it could fire up my spouse to want to serve one for awhile. That said, I am 100% certain that there will be plenty of seniors who now feel obligated to serve the two missions, even if it really isn’t the best thing for them or their families.
The close to home service missions have seemed to be a way to use seniors who can’t afford to serve full time proselytizing missions. The idea that every senior couple should serve two missions, one a service mission and one a proselytizing mission, just underscores how out of touch Elder Pearson is. Most seniors won’t be able to serve away from home for financial, health, family, or other reasons. Personally, I’ve always been grateful I served as a young adult but there is no way I would serve as a senior because I do not believe there is any realistic chance the church would use me in a way that comes close to what I can contribute to my family and community on my own.
Why Utah? That is where the largest cohort of economically advantaged TBMs resides. Just like BYU provides the core group for future Church leadership, the Utah area presidency sees the state/area as providing the core group of senior missionaries. From that perspective, it makes total sense to make that appeal/ersatz call to that group.
But Pearson and his counselors miss several critical details. First, they are serving essentially unlimited full-time missions with their wives, so why should others not follow their example? But they are also getting the GA stipend as they do so (area 70s, of course, do not…at least to my knowledge). An increasing number of 55-70 year-olds do not and will not have the financial capability–even if that threshold is lower than reality due to their willingness to sacrifice for the Church. Second, as mentioned above, the one-size-fits-all model simply cannot apply here. Health issues, inability to actually retire, family obligations, and other restrictions mean that many in that cohort not only cannot serve missions away from home, but would be severely limited in what they could do working (for free) from home. Third, and relatedly, what is this blanket prescription going to do to those who fall into those categories–will they feel like they are not enough? Will they feel judged for not going once, twice, or more often? Will their activity wane? There are other things that I could mention, but just these three strike me as elemental failures in their perspectives.
I live in heavily TBM Utah County. I can certainly envision a scenario where a bishop would approach me and my spouse about a mission. I would have no difficulty saying no. Not only will I likely be working (as a professor at BYU) until my mid-70s, but I have an adult son with a neurological condition, a granddaughter with developmental issues, aging parents who I will likely have to care for in some way, and my wife would never agree to leave home–least of all for a proselytizing mission. My ward has seen at least a dozen couples serve senior missions, some doing so multiple times. More power to them. But expecting everyone to do so is unrealistic in the extreme, unethical in many ways, and undoubtedly an initiative that reflects the personal predilections of the area presidency more than being Church-wide policy.
As an aside, so very happy that neither Gilbert nor Pearson was named president of BYU. The new president may be a caretaker and unable/unwilling to push back on Gilbert and the ECO’s policies, but at least they are not on campus every day making everyone’s lives miserable.
Hopefully my recent financial support of John Dehlin will get me (age 52) blacklisted from recruitment. I may have to fully outline to my TBM wife (age 55) all my concerns about the Church. We have already agreed to work on previously neglected areas of our marriage (communication, continued courtship etc) so hopefully we can just put this aside or I just tell her I cannot ethically agree to this. My disillusionment due to the SEC fines, Brother Joseph’s hormones, masonic rites etc leads me to believe that I can do much good elsewhere. I might have considered some type of senior mission but Kevin and Kevin seem to be taking away my free agency.
I will be charitable and not share my witty ruminations on the last name of Schmutz.
If the church were to fill roles normally staffed by senior missionaries with paid employees, as the OP suggested (and I agree with), it is going to have to step it up significantly in terms of pay and benefits. With very few exceptions, the average working professional could do much better working nearly anywhere else. In terms of senior service missionaries – maybe it’s just me but we seem to have an excess of young proselytizing missionaries. Since moving to my area about a year ago, we have had multiple sets of missionary trios. Why not ask young proselytizing missionaries if they would like to switch to a service mission to fill some of these needed roles? I’m sure a lot of them would take that offer I know a lot of 20 year olds who are perfectly capable of answering phones, processing food orders, or doing general maintenance at a church camp. Stop putting undue pressure on our seniors. Finally, if staffing all these new temples is a problem, good luck finding enough “temple worthy” skilled trades people to keep all of the HVAC, electrical, and plumbing systems in proper working order.
Probably not what Kevin Pearson had in mind, but I can see some logic in asking people to serve two missions. (Full disclosure–I’m a widowed man, primary caregiver to a son with Down Syndrome, and outside of Utah, so I am off the hook.) Anyway, if they ask all seniors to serve one mission, the vast majority will serve it at home if they can. So you let them do that and then you tell them they have to get out of Utah for a while too. That’s a win for Utah (less water consumption), a win for the Church in general (lots of free labor), and, if they do it right (big if), a win for small branches in inner cities and developing countries. And given, my sister-in-law’s recent experience in an inner-city branch with her husband, a win for the missionaries who learn first hand what those members are facing.
Eliza, back when I was a student we had a paid CES director, who ran things. This was London though, late 80s, early 90s, not a senior missionary couple, so even that can be a paid position.
I am not in Utah. Hurray! I am aware of at least one struggling ward in our stake who might be struggling less if there weren’t senior missionaries serving from the ward elsewhere.
Quite apart from whether my generation can afford to retire (I’m 53, and the state pension age has been rising to 67 for me, and 68 for those a few years behind me) while we’re still fit enough to serve a mission, some of us already feel very burnt out by church service, raised in the church, with our parents continually serving, and the impact of that, followed by years of serving ourselves, whilst trying to protect our own children from the negatives we experienced from our parents service..
I am aware of more than one older couple in our ward where the husband would like to serve a senior mission, whilst the wife does not…
Mainly I feel sick that the church clearly doesn’t consider the labourer to be worthy of hire, and instead seeks to squeeze the members dry! How do they think this is an environment we want to invite friends, family or even enemies to be a part of. It isn’t.
I’m confident that revelation is part of the equation. Not only do I believe that Elder Pearson himself was inspired to ask those aged 55-70 years to consider serving two missions–he also asked them to prayerfully consider the same. And while there are many (like me) who will not be able to do both–or even one as the case may be–and many who have the good health and resources to serve two missions–who would be more than happy to–my sense is that personal revelation will do much of the sorting vis-a-vis who serves twice and who doesn’t.
On “just say no” vs. the reflexive acceptance of any and all directives that come from GA’s. . . I wonder if we are now in a new moment of greater willingness on the part of membership to ignore leaders’ directions when they don’t work for them. Consider the increasing support among mormons for gay marriage, the wide disagreement with calls to get vaccinated and wear masks, the large numbers of young men not serving missions despite being commanded to. The leaders perhaps sense this growing independence, and respond by cracking down like parents of rebellious teenagers who spend too much time looking for liaisons at dairy queens.
Revelation may be part of the equation for individuals deciding whether or not to serve a senior mission. But Pearson has already indicated that he does not see personal revelation as significant in personal decision-making (see the talk to the Alpine youth regarding mission service). From his perspective, this “call” to serve at least two senior missions is a non-negotiable part of having been baptized with little to no regard for personal circumstances. This kind of black-and-white, one-size-fits-all approach to discipleship is problematic in prioritizing unthinking obedience over everything else.
On a professional level , I despise Mr. Kevin Pearson.
United health care is the largest health insurance company in the USA and dominates many regions. His company optum medical, a sister company of UHC, decimated the whole industry. They lowered payment to providers, so low that we left the network due to less than medicaide payments.. People that mow the lawn make more than UHC payments.
Mr. Pearson is the poster child of corporate greed. Then he takes it to another level with the prosperty gospel…..he prospers and everyone else suffers.
I suggest a wheat and tares have a series of article that highlights the GA’s prior careers and how they helped or did not help society. From Ballard used car, woods cross history to Cook hospital issues in SF.
If we study their pasts, we will see they were no where close to anyone’s definition of a role model and unchristian behavior in the business world.
A great post. Thank you! The scriptures say, “well done thou good and faithful servant, enter into thy rest”. Unfortunately, that rest doesn’t come until you’re dead! Not much good to you or your family, friends, etc.
A related “scripture” from another great “prophet” of our time, “I’d rather die while I’m living than live while I’m dead”. (Jimmy Buffett, ‘Growing Older but Not Up’)
A
From his perspective, this “call” to serve at least two senior missions is a non-negotiable part of having been baptized with little to no regard for personal circumstances.
Just wondering if you have always been able to read minds or if this is a new phenomena?
The verb that I heard in the devotional was “invite”, which is a far cry from “non-negotiable”.
Ojiisan,
I suppose the question is who is inviting — Is the Lord Jesus Christ inviting Utah seniors to serve two missions? or is Elder Pearson inviting?
and,
Is it really an honest invitation, with each senior free to accept or decline with no loss in status or impairment in progression? or, is it a call or expectation disguised as an invitation?
These seem like fair questions to me.
Ojiisan,
The “reading minds” snark violates our commenting rules. If you disagree with the substance of the comment, feel free to share your view, but over at W&T we don’t do personal attacks. Consider this your warning.
In any event, that references Pearson’s comments in Alpine that several commenters have referred to. No mind reading necessary, just an analysis of Pearson’s latest string of devotionals.
p.s. I am okay if it really is Elder Pearson making the invitation, and not the Lord, and not Elder Pearson acting in the name of the Lord. If he sees a need and wants to help solve a problem, that is good. But in such a case, I really, really, most sincerely hope the invitation is a real invitation to consider, and that no other pretenses are are hinted, suggested, implied, or anything of that sort.
In 2002 in West Africa as a missionary with her husband, the mother of my friend was killed in her apartment during an apparent robbery attempt. We had last touch at that point but I’m sure there were/are mixed feelings.
I second @Faith’s suggestion for a series on GA’s prior lives: “Before they were…”
A few thoughts that echo Elisa and many commenters:
1. I find it hypocritical and immoral to for top church leaders to get paid for their service while expecting everyone else to fund their own service.
2. I cannot think of anything worse than spending my twilight years in a temple five days a week sitting through eight endowment sessions.
3. I suppose one unintended consequence of being the “family focused” church is that, whether it’s having queer kids, or helping your adult kids by picking up your grandkids from school, when family and the church collide, many members are choosing family. Their rhetoric created the current problem.
Complete spitballing here:
If you’re a seasoned member of the Church and want to serve a “senior mission” with your spouse but on your own terms, then just do it- to quote SWK and Nike.
Step 1: pick the country/city/region where YOU want to live or experience for a year to year and a half or as long g as you want to serve.
Step 2: rent an apartment or home in that area for as long as you want to serve.
Step 3: move to the “mission” you’ve selected.
Step 4: upon arrival and acclimation, call/contact all of the local relief society presidents, EQPs, branch presidents, bishops, stake presidents and introduce yourself and spouse as Mormon retirees with a skill set and time on your hands to serve for up to however long you’ve decided to “serve.” Hell, even include the local MP in your offers to help/serve.
Step 5: identify any Mormon interests you have, e.g. teaching seminary, institute, ministering, storehouse, career help, teaching how to read etc.
Step 6: wait for the requests for help to roll in and then GET TO WORK. .
No sane RSP, EQP, or other leader would turn down such an offer of help. You’d be able to deliver pure service to people who would really benefit sans all the mission hierarchy BS and rules-such as they are for senior couples. You would also be your own mission president.
There is nothing stopping any couple or individual (JI above) from designing and executing their own mission on their own terms but also in a way that sort of tracks traditional senior missionary service.
Rinse and repeat all over the globe for as many times as you and your spouse are interested. You can experience a new country/town/city that you are interested in experiencing and serve others too. Win-win.
rb,
Brilliant. Mature Christian adults can certainly direct and control their own service work.
Mind reading is not required; simply reading or listening to Pearson’s actual comments is sufficient. If I could read minds, I would not be commented on blog posts–I would be in Las Vegas playing high stakes poker.
Even if we stipulate that this was an “invitation” from Pearson, we know what such alleged ambiguity produces in an LDS context. When the announcement about lowering mission ages to 18 for men and 20 for women was made, it was presented as an option available for those who wanted (or needed) to take advantage of it. What it evolved into, of course, was a de facto assumption that 18 was the age for men…and anyone who did not basically walk across the stage, get his high school diploma, and go directly to the MTC without passing go or collecting $200 was somehow living his life off of the covenant path. If you doubt that, I have at least two dozen stories about friends of my kids (and my own son) who ran into these new assumptions to their detriment. If you do not think that Pearson’s senior missionary “invitation” will not morph into similar expectations, you have not been paying attention.
But if we take a 30,000 foot view of this–and the recent re-emphasis on young men serving missions–at least part of the motivation is to maintain and extend activity among the Church’s membership. Attrition is not just happening among Gen Z. Perhaps understandable from an institutional perspective…but it sets the blanket prescription at odds with the specific circumstances of many members.
This topic hit a nerve! When my parents first began serving at their local temple, my mother explained to me that the temple president told them to view it as a mission and take it as seriously as if they were serving a full-time mission in a different local – explain to friends and family that their temple service takes priority over going out to dinner with friends, time off, extended vacations, even visiting family out of town (like me and my family), stuff like that. I’m pretty sure this was an echo of general conference talks admonishing members to always put the church first so your family knows your priority is church service. My mom told me she wouldn’t visit us (2 states away) unless the Logan temple was closed. I’d invite her out during the kids spring break, or maybe for a quick fall trip, but they never clicked with the temple’s extended cleaning break, so no-go there. She’d ask me to bring my kids in
February when the temple was closed for a few weeks, but my kids had school. Even when I would be there in the summer, she’d skip out on spontaneous Aggie ice-cream runs or miniature golfing or simply hanging out together because she’d have a shift at the temple, sometime even covering for someone else who had out-of-town family visiting. So after a few years I quit asking her to visit. And because I got tired of being the only to make the trip to see them, but my parents never reciprocating, over the years I quit making annual summer trips with my family to see them. Now I’m more likely to fly out once or twice a year by myself to spend 3-4 days. Consequently, my mother laments that fact the she doesn’t know my kids as well or feel as close to them as her other grandkids who live 6 blocks away from her. Well, she chose the temple over her family. Again and again. Because as she’d often say, “This is our mission.” A 10+ year mission, but a mission, nonetheless. And my Dad went along with it. There’s a lot more to unpack here, obviously: in a nutshell, I think it’s easier for her to believe she’s making a difference for dead people than face the fact that families and relationships in the here-and-now can be messy and require presence and effort.
Unrelated to my parents, but the senior mission topic, is another story. There’s a woman in my ward who’s serving as an office secretary to the local mission president. She’s thrilled, thinking she’d never get to serve a mission, and now she can. She drives 45-min to get to the mission office each day and loves it. But last Saturday, she mentioned that even though she wasn’t needed at the office that day, she still woke up at 12:30am on that Saturday morning so she’d have enough time to do everything she needed to do that day to be ready to go in to the mission office on Monday (“even though it’s technically our day off,” she chuckled, also saying she might have to get up at 12:30 again Monday morning to be ready for the week!). The thing is, women like my mother and this woman in my ward, far from feeling manipulated, really seem to believe their callings/service are essential to temples and missions functioning. And maybe they are. And perhaps to my mom, the cost of family relationships is a sign of her devotion to the church. I just can’t bear another tearful “I don’t want any empty chairs at the table in the next life” sob to me when she’s perfectly fine with empty chairs right now. I think the woman in my ward is cut from the same cloth. I wonder how her health will be if she continues as she is, and if she’ll wear it as a badge of honor?
I second Faith’s suggestion with GREAT enthusiasm. This, actually, sounds like a job for Dehlin or Bill Reel with RFM riding shotgun. I had a loving, supportive mission president for most of my mission who did his right best to support us and the work at the same time. He was replaced by a hard charger who had been a corporate psychologist who consulted on how to make corporations more efficient and profitable, so you can guess what he was like as a president. What these guys were like before they came to church “service” is totally relevant and illustrative.
IF, ye have desires to serve ye are called to the work.
That baseline is already cooked into whatever ongoing direction takes place.
@jaredsbrother, I think that’s really RFM’s wheelhouse. Dehlin isn’t really a biographer. Would for sure be entertaining.
Allison—yes yes yes
Watching an elderly relative serve in the temple put me off from the idea of ever signing up to serve. It took priority over anything that conflicted with the weekly temple shifts. The school performances of grandchildren, helping family members, even their own physical health, *all* took a backseat to temple service. I came to the conclusion that it would be better to use energy serving the living over dedicating oneself to serving those who are already dead. Sometimes I look at all the elderly people working in the temple and wonder what it would be like if they were tutoring children and adolescents at the local schools and helping out their struggling family members more.
I’m wondering how this new directive will play out in famines, if it might have similar effects. Some of it may depend on how the senior missionaries end up using their time. But it could also depend on how much flexibility they are given to attend to their family responsibilities.
Dang autocorrect. Families NOT famines.
Also thank you Elisa for your voice on this matter and so many others you write about so well. Thank you thank you thank you!
Very good points. The one that sticks in my craw is the LDS Church definitely enjoys taking advantage of free labor, all while the “professionals” get paid doing the same work. Why the difference?
Sure, a mission president has greater responsibilities. Is that the reason the mission president is paid? But then why not pay the senior missionaries who work for the mission president? Why treat the two “servants of the Lord” so differently?
A related complaint is all the while the Church leadership depends on the sacrifice and service of the members it shuns the members from having input on how the church is run. The “professionals” take care of that.
Why is the LDS Church so keen on modeling itself as a corporation? When did the corporate model of having “privileged” members managing the “non-privileged” staff become the way of Christ’s church?
One reason men have fled the LDS Church is the church treats men as having nothing to offer. The church program has been correlated and optimized and so over programmed there is nothing for members to do but read the script. And don’t think about going off script!
How boring. How humiliating. How trivializing of the power of God! The church of Russel M Nelson thinks so little of men it doesn’t even pretend the priesthood is special – did away with the General Priesthood meeting. Why? Is it because it was made meaningless by the church correlation taking over the need for men with ideas?
I want to respond to Ojiisan’s comments and ji’c comments.
But first, @Elisa, I went back and watched the entire meeting, not just Kevin Pearson’s remarks.
The rest of the program: I almost couldn’t watch. I’ve lost my tolerance for the drippy, saccharine ethos of our culture. The lead up to Kevin Pearson’s talk was hype. We know serving missions are challenging for anyone. To hear the speakers, it’s all friends and blessings. It’s letters from grandchildren who express gratitude for the examples of their absent grandparents. The speakers heavily romanticized missions.
The promotional video production shown mid-meeting was well put together, naturally, and I applaud the service the senior missionaries are giving to help illiterate children and those with physical disabilities in developing regions. The church should build the infrastructure (support seniors financially like many here have suggested) and relationships with other agencies to do much, much more of this kind of work. But the richness of this kind of service is only a part of the experience. I spent a decade of my career going in and out of developing, equatorial countries on extended business trips, and there are a number of risks and stress factors that weren’t touched on in the video. Battling stomach bacteria is unavoidable. The heat and humidity is relentless. Even in a nice apartment, the air conditioning is little like we are used to in North America. Power outages are common. Transportation can be difficult and dangerous. And for the Utah anti-vax crowd…brace for needing around 14 vaccinations for a number of exotic diseases. Perhaps the biggest ongoing threat is malaria. The video featured senior missionaries in the central islands of the Philippines. Have a serious medical incident? You have to get to Manila (hours away by air) as quickly as you can. Does the church pay for that? Does the church offer health insurance coverage for those serving in these countries? I’m not asking rhetorically. I don’t know. If the church doesn’t…that’s a big concern. My company always purchased emergency care and air evacuation policies for me. Even in my thirties when I was working in countries in Latin America and in parts of southern Asia, I suffered from infections, stomach bacteria and on one month-long trip came down with a dangerous pneumonia and had to rush back to the states after initial, crude treatments. My wife worked for an NGO in similar environments and on one trip contracted a parasitic infection so serious that took her years to recover. The risks are real as I’m sure some W&T’s readers and commenters know from personal experience. I also understand many opportunities fall in developed countries, but the video focused mostly on how seniors were helping impoverished populations abroad, I’m guessing because that tugs on the heartstrings of members the most. I’m wondering at what point does the church offer full disclosure regarding the risks of committing to the kinds of developing, equatorial environments shown on the video, and what kind of healthcare assurances does the church provide?
@Ojiisan: Yes, Pearson “invited” and added the qualification about physical fitness to serve. (I’m sure the church doesn’t want to have to deal with present or imminent health problems with their senior missionaries. Sorry that seems cynical, but the church, if anything, understands cost-benefit analysis.) The problem here is the way Pearson’s “invitations” will be operationalized throughout the stakes within his region. My guess is stake presidents will receive from Pearson an analysis for their stakes. You have x number of empty nester seniors with temple recommends who are not serving. We need you to call y number of couples within z months to serve here, here and here. That will be the instruction. In turn, stake presidents will pivot and start calling in seniors and applying the pressure that the Lord needs them to serve, now. There could even be service mission calling ambushes. So if you thought Pearson’s style was soft, I’m going to bet a big pile of chips that it won’t be handed to stake presidents as suggestions. It will hit stake presidents who are Pearson’s subordinates and turn into a quota management mandate. BTW, you should watch Pearson’s talk in the Alpine Tabernacle to young men if you want get a sense of his persona. His tone and words came close to being invective.
@ji: I wish that were reality, but I highly doubt the distinction will be made. Pearson represents the wishes of his superiors and culturally I don’t think things in our church work like you suggest it might. Example, an area seventy came to my stake’s conference years ago. He issued a blanket challenge for each ward to have four convert baptisms in the coming year. The next Sunday in ward council, our WML joked that we didn’t have a single household in the ward who weren’t members (a reality in some areas along the Wasatch front), but that we did have a few inactive households and perhaps our goal should be to reactivate them. The bishop said he asked the SP that question, and was told you have been given an assignment and you need to meet it. I joked out loud, quipping, incredulously, “Should our first step be to pray that a handful of families move out and nonmembers buy their homes? Or should we ask them directly to sell and move?” And then there was this long awkward silence because no one knew what to say, or do. My point is that most things seem to turn into a cramdown in our church culture, and local leaders don’t usually push back, even when the request is ridiculous and untenable.
@A, I agree.
@Faith, I endorse your idea fully.
BigSky, I know that is not the reality — that is why I expressed a hope for a possibility — but I know I may be hoping in vain, and I also know that his suggestion almost certainly will be turned into mandate both by other leaders and also by individuals within the culture.
Eliza
Interesting.
The point of the comment was to point out that there are no words in the devotionaI that could be used to support the statement that “this call to serve at least two senior missions is a non-negotiable part of having been baptized with little to no regard for personal circumstances”. And I have yet to see anyone point out to me words in the devotional that would support that statement.
The Alpine devotional you referred to was, as I understand it, related to youth serving a mission. Hard to see how statements to youth could be construed as applying to senior missionary service when the same statements were not made in the devotional related to senior missionary service. It would seem a more reasonable argument that, if he had wanted those remarks to apply to senior missionary service, he would have included them in that devotional.
And predictions as to what may or may not happen in the future (see BigSky) are mere speculation as to what may or may not happen in the future and as such cannot constitute words that support that conclusion.
They are going to need a lot of “volunteers” to staff all the new (and old) temples.
Outstanding post, Elisa. It’s just one point, but I’m particularly struck by the Church pressuring people into serving missions at their expense to do things that the Church also sometimes pays employees to do. It’s like American capitalists’ dream world. Employers already would prefer to have a nice high unemployment rate and a nice flimsy social safety net so that they can always properly threaten their recalcitrant employees if they dare to quit the job the employers are so generously offering. But most employers are stuck with having to replace employees who leave with new employees (at least until AI replaces us all and Elon Musk owns the robots and therefore the world). But the Church can always replace an employee with a missionary, so they have the ultimate leverage against employees. I mean, as though it already weren’t enough that they can guilt employees into taking less pay for doing “the Lord’s work” and also reclaim 10% of their employees’ salaries. It’s all just horrifying.