Jake Heaps and the "Football/Tebow Mission"

hawkwing wrote:
Welcome to the site, prowlingcougars. How'd you find the webpage?

From a missionary :lol:

prowlincougars wrote:
I disagree. I know without a doubt that some people are not meant to serve a mission. Is Jake Heaps not supposed to serve a mission? Well, I can't answer that, that is between him and the Lord. Whether its because of a physical, mental, spiritual or emotional problem there is no question that many missionaries are not meant to serve a mission. Having established that, the line is not clear on what all the exceptions are for someone to serve a mission. I firmly believe that one can be a better missionary as an athlete or other more prominent figure then as an actual missionary. I haven't ever questioned if Steve Young should have served a mission. His continuos fame and spotlight over the years have inspired thousands of members and sparked the interest of thousands more non-members. Considering some missionaries(depending on the mission) are lucky to have 1 or 2 baptisms during the two years they serve I would say there is no comparison. So, yeah I believe he can use the football as a mission card and even though many athletes still go on to be succesful after there missions, generally they are too far behind to catch up to be more then a college star or on rare occasions a third string professional athlete. In a sport like football being the most popular sport in America, a mormon football player really has a chance to be an example and get the word out to millions

Update: I didn't read every post before typing this so sorry for sounding redundant with the Steve Young thing, also I think the Donny and Marie thing is a great example too.

The resurrection of the post caught my attention. I agree with prowlincougars. I served my mission in Japan during the height of the Donny and Marie popularity. Their fame and example at the time opened a lot of doors. This can happen with athletes as well, so long as they really make an effort to live their religion. Serving a mission is voluntary, not a commandment. It is strongly encouraged, but shouldn't be considered a commandment.

This thread ended before I even joined. Before my time BUT I can see some people haven't even changed :bug: :blush: :~(

I posted something thinking this was a new thread, silly me for thinking that I could think.

I understand considering that you got your looks before your brains.

scott715 wrote:
I understand considering that you got your looks before your brains.

What!!!! I got brains???? When did that happen?

snoscythe wrote:

I hope he gets to BYU and realizes that playing football is secondary to serving the lord. I will not judge him for his decision but going on a missing is a commandment to all worthy males. It doesn't exclude the most talented ones, sports wise, because they can use thier sport to spread the message.

I agreed. If you read my OP, while I wish he would serve, I don't criticize him for choosing not to serve. I don't pretend to know him or his situation. I criticize him for suggesting that football is an acceptable substitute.



Where it breaks down is when Jake Heaps, Donny Osmond, David Archuleta, or Manti Teo talk about serving their own kind of mission as if it is an equivalent substitute.

Or Steve Young among others. I wholeheartedly agree with you Sno, parentally speaking and seminarily teacher speaking as well.



Go Cougs!!!

J. Child

Ammon, ID

snoscythe wrote:

I hope he gets to BYU and realizes that playing football is secondary to serving the lord. I will not judge him for his decision but going on a missing is a commandment to all worthy males. It doesn't exclude the most talented ones, sports wise, because they can use thier sport to spread the message.

I agreed. If you read my OP, while I wish he would serve, I don't criticize him for choosing not to serve. I don't pretend to know him or his situation. I criticize him for suggesting that football is an acceptable substitute.



Where it breaks down is when Jake Heaps, Donny Osmond, David Archuleta, or Manti Teo talk about serving their own kind of mission as if it is an equivalent substitute. It's absolutely not. It's at that point that I take issue with the decision. If you just don't go and leave it at that, I'm fine with that. If you go and come back early for undisclosed reasons, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. If you choose not to go and state that you are choosing to spread your message through football/song/hackey-sack or that you feel like you can touch more people through your God-given talents than your God-mandated mission, that's where my hackles get raised. I think it's a miserable example to set, I think it's a cop-out to try and make your ignoble decisions look noble, and I think it demeans the sacrifice of those who have decided to serve a mission as well as the dignity of those that chose not to serve for private reasons.



This creates a gray-area where there should be none. You go or you don't go. There is no football mission.

Couldn't agree more. We all have commandments we CHOOSE not to live. So, you get no judgment from me if you choose not to live one. We don't know all the details, so I do not judge someone who says they aren't going. It could be issues they cannot overcome that are keeping them from going such as physical, emotional, mental, or past transgressions since repented of that disqualify a person. Note, I am not claiming any of this at all applies to Heaps. I wish to cast no aspersions on why he doesn't want to go or judge him for saying he's not going. His reasons are his own. But I do want to draw the line where he starts trying to rationalize it in a way that makes it seem like it's OK to ignore the counsel of the bretheren. That is a dangerous attitude.



I actually feel sorry for those that put off things of a much more important eternal perspective for the fame and fortune of today. Today's fame and fortune will be of no value when the few short years of mortality have passed. In comparison, "how great will be your joy" if you have not put off serving the Lord. It is not like they are mutually exclusive either. We know that you can serve the Lord, and still be considered a success by the world, though the latter is not necessary for life in the great beyond.



I also do find the attitude a little disprectful to me (basically implying that only the non-talented who won't be famous need to serve). Say what you want about Ben Olsen, but he served. He didn't say, "I'm a great QB and thus my talents exempt me from having to serve a mission." I'll bet he doesn't regret it one bit either. Not to go too far, but it is also a little disrepectful to the Lord. You're essentially saying, "I don't want to serve how you want. I've got a better idea that will meet both of our needs."



I will enjoy watching Heaps play QB, no doubt. Deep down, for him, I wish he would serve--but only if he is going to do it with all his heart. It doesn't benefit anyone to get a missionary out there that doesn't want to be there but is checking the box. So my hope is that his heart changes and he decides to go with all his heart if he can, not because I am judging him but because I care for him and all of our young men and know how much devoted service can change your life. But if he doesn't, I will still be cheering him on as the BYU QB, just as I cheered on our other players who chose not to serve missions. But, please, stop talking about a football mission out of respect to those of us who have heeded the call to serve, and Him who has commanded it, whether by His own voice or the voice of His servants.



I'm not trying to be too preachy, but speaking of football missions trivializes the sacrifices of missionaries who leave family for two years, go to foreign lands, suffer embarrasment and persecution for the cause, etc. It trivializes the importance missions have on touching the souls of missionaries, as well as those they teach. It trivializes the importance of directly working to bring about the salvation of God's children, whom He desperately wants to bring back to Him.



I would like to meet someone who joined the church because Steve Young, Donnie Osmond, or someone else was LDS. It is impossible, but I would like to compare the number of people who joined the church because of famous LDS people with those that would have joined the church had the LDS person served a mission. My guess is that the balance would fall in favor of service. My guess is that those who opened the doors because they have heard of famous LDS people probably would have opened the doors anyway, once touched by the sword of the Spirit. Fame doesn't convert people. The spirit converts people.

I may be in the minority here, but I feel that desire is just as important as worthiness. I'm actually very glad that the church (the organization) has backed off of the every "worthy" male should serve a mission stance to a degree. I just wish the church (the members) would follow suit. Sadly, that's how I feel about a lot of things that seem to be dividing the church right now.

stuckinbig10country wrote:
I may be in the minority here, but I feel that desire is just as important as worthiness. I'm actually very glad that the church (the organization) has backed off of the every "worthy" male should serve a mission stance to a degree. I just wish the church (the members) would follow suit. Sadly, that's how I feel about a lot of things that seem to be dividing the church right now.

That's not at all what I heard last conference.

As a follow up to my last comment, during last October's General Conference, President Monson said:

Thomas S. Monson wrote:
First, to young men of the Aaronic Priesthood and to you young men who are becoming elders: I repeat what prophets have long taught—that every worthy, able young man should prepare to serve a mission. Missionary service is a priesthood duty—an obligation the Lord expects of us who have been given so very much. Young men, I admonish you to prepare for service as a missionary. Keep yourselves clean and pure and worthy to represent the Lord. Maintain your health and strength. Study the scriptures. Where such is available, participate in seminary or institute. Familiarize yourself with the missionary handbook Preach My Gospel.

http://lds.org/general-conference/2010/10/as-we-meet-together-again?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

stuckinbig10country wrote:
I may be in the minority here, but I feel that desire is just as important as worthiness. I'm actually very glad that the church (the organization) has backed off of the every "worthy" male should serve a mission stance to a degree. I just wish the church (the members) would follow suit. Sadly, that's how I feel about a lot of things that seem to be dividing the church right now.

I have not seen any backing off of the requirement to serve a mission, though I do acknowledge that the standards have been raised so that just having a desire to serve a mission may not be enough. In essence they have said we don't want every male--we want every worthy, capable young man who desires to serve to go on a mission.



Perhaps our members have rationalized the stance away to some extent by thinking that if a young man doesn't have desires to serve, then they are justified in not going. While it is true that we don't need missionaries who just want to check the box, if a young man feels that way, he needs to do some soul searching and get his heart right so that he can serve--not use his lack of motivation as some sort of exception to the requirement to serve.