Rejected LDS missionaries?

Question

If someone wants to be called for a mission and is rejected, what usually is the cause? Does this stigmatize the member? Will he not be allowed into the temple?

Answer 1

There are quite a few reasons that people are not called on full-time missions for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints nowadays.

First, you should know that it's not just young, single people who are called to be full-time missionaries. Couples and older single women can also serve as full-time missionaries. Young men between the ages of 19 and 26 are expected to serve a mission if they are able, but young women, older single women, and couples have the option about whether to serve. People who serve a mission for the church apply to the church and receive a letter from the church that explains that they are called to serve in a certain area. It is that person's privilege to accept the calling. But there is no potential danger to the person if he/she chooses not to accept the call except that he/she misses out on the privilege of service. This happens from time to time.

Now, for the reasons that people cannot serve:

There are many people whose health will not allow them to endure the rigors of missionary service. Missionary life is very demanding and requires a certain degree of stamina. If you are not able to handle the structure for health reasons, you are exempted from any possible obligation. Before a person applies for a mission, he/she has to have a complete physical checkup and a doctor's signature that he/she is in good health.

Others have obligations to family, etc. that preclude their service. For example, divorced saints are not allowed to serve missions.

In addition, some latter-day saints have past deeds that could affect their ability to serve as missionaries. Missionaries who have been guilty of certain sins, generally sexual sins, are not qualified for missionary service.

The criteria for who is allowed to serve missions have changed in the past few years. This has been referred to as "raising the bar". The bar has been raised in the sense that those individuals who don't have a strong testimony of the gospel of Jesus Christ or who aren't convinced about why they should serve are not allowed to serve missions. This ensures that the missionary force is made up of people who know why they are doing what they are doing.

As far as entering the temple, any member of the church who meets certain standards of worthiness is encouraged to enter the temple. We would very much like it if everyone in the world got to enter the temple and participate in the beautiful worship there. We are not in the business of keeping people out of the temple, if they are prepared to be there. If a person has committed a sin that makes him/her unworthy to enter the temple, that person is encouraged to repent so that he/she can be worthy to enter the temple again. Whether or not a person has served a mission is not one of the criteria evaluated for whether a person can enter the temple. However, the criteria for entering the temple and the criteria for worthiness for serving a mission are similar. That is, if a person has committed and not yet repented of a sin, that person may be barred from both the temple and missionary service. But there is always a hope that he/she will repent and worship in the temple later.

The question of whether not serving a mission causes a stigma for some people is kind of complicated. As I mentioned, young single men between the ages of 19 and 26 are expected to fulfill full-time missions for the church assuming that they meet the heath requirements, and so on. Unfortunately, since people are imperfect, hearing that a young man didn't serve a mission might raise some questions in people's minds. But if you just hear that a young man has not served a mission, there is no reason to have an automatic stigma against him. If a young man has not served a mission, then, it can be because he was not able to serve, for health reasons, for example, or that he was unworthy to serve, or that he doesn't have a very strong commitment to the church or the counsel of the prophets. As a young single woman who's looking for a potential mate, I'd like a young man who is as committed to the church as I am. So I would think carefully about a young man who didn't serve a mission because he didn't want to, because this could be an indication that this person is not very interested in following the teachings of the prophet or living the teachings of Jesus Christ. So if a young woman is thinking about marrying a young man who didn't go on a mission, she would probably naturally want to investigate why he didn't go, only because she wants to choose someone who's living a worthy life and has as strong of a commitment to the faith as she has. But it's really not most people's affair why a person has not served a mission, so it's best not to pry into it most of the time.

I would hope that no young woman would reject a young man who hadn't served a mission for health reasons, as long as he otherwise showed signs of desiring to serve Jesus Christ.

On a mission, a young man learns to teach the gospel of Jesus Christ and learns leadership skills and discipline. There is a certain amount of respect for those who have served full-time missions, because of the great personal sacrifice they have given, the skills they have learned, and the discipline they had to maintain. So many young women would rather go out with a returned missionary than a young man who didn't serve a mission for these reasons, too. But having served a mission is not necessarily a guarantee that a person is a desirable marriage partner.

In my personal case, I am not married, and so I think about whether I would like to marry a man who has served a mission. A full-time mission is a defining experience in a person's life, and it's often a time of life where a person learns some of his/her most important lessons about life. I changed and grew a lot as a person as a result of the experiences I had on my mission. So when I think about my potential mate, I would really like to marry someone who has served a mission, simply because I think that we would be more on the same page having both had that significant experience in our lives. However, I don't think it would be right for me to reject anyone who hadn't served outright, as long as it seemed like he otherwise demonstrated worthiness in his personal life.

Those young men who didn't join the church until they were past the age limit for full-time missionary service are not expected to serve, of course.

Even for those who are not able to perform full-time missionary service, the church has many service opportunities. Members of the church everywhere are asked to fulfill responsibilities, often at the level of the local congregation. I, for example, have been asked to serve as a teacher in the church's women's organization. There are also missions that don't require full-time missionary work, such as service missions.

Answer 2

There is a high standard to go on a mission. If some one doesn't make an effort to prepare at 17 they may not be called at 19. If they don't keep their promises at home, it will not help them to be sent to away for 2 years.

If they don't go on a mission, it doesn't necessarily keep them from being involved in the full membership of the church. Some may even be called as local ward missionaries. If they are worthy to go to the temple, they may.

I have a friend who was sent home early from a mission. That was worse than if he didn't go.

Answer 3

shouldnt it be LSD