"Mormon Student"

[Paul Finkelman]

It strikes me that Fred's description is one that lends itself to the
argument that this is not a "religious obligation" at all, but is more
of a social obligation.  There is no religious or theological
requirement; no formal penalty, and nothing holding you back down the
road, and you *can* do it later.  Community pressure may be strong, but
is that, or should that, be a concern of the state or courts.   Should
the courts order the state to change its policies because of informal
community pressure?

Perhaps I am the only one on the list troubled by the assumption that
because there is a religious connection to an activity that makes it
exempt from state law and that the state should accommodate what is a
social choice that is surely not "community service" in any secular
meaning of the term.  It might make good policy for the state to allow
*anyone* a year off for any reason whatsoever.  But, I do not see why
there should be a free exercise right in this case to an exemption from
what is otherwise a religiously neutral and quite reasonable rule.  I
have a friend whose daughter wants to take year off to go to Israel to
improve her Hebrew and will probably work on a Kibbutz.  If she had this
scholarship would it be a religious exemption?  Her "mission" to Israel
is connected to her faith as is her desire to improve her Hebrew.  Is
that enough of a religious connection to also demand and get an
exemption.  What is someone is simply religiously motivated and wants to
go mediate for a year and then come back and retain the scholarship? 

-----Original Message-----
From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Fred Gedicks
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 2:31 PM
To: religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: "Mormon Student"

It's been literally years since I posted on this site, but I am a
regular lurker.

I'm not sure that "choice" really solves anything, but FWIW, here is my
answer to Paul's question, as an active (if slightly heterodox) Mormon.
And like a lot of religious or theological questions, the answer is
complicated, so I hope this is not too long.

Formally, a mission is optional.  There is no LDS church doctrine or
policy which prevents a young man from full participation in all the
ordinances of the church if he fails to serve a mission.  I know a
number of older men who did not serve missions when they were young who
are fully engaged in church leadership positions.  (As some of you may
know, Mormons have a lay priesthood.)

Informally, however, there are powerful influences that make serving a
mission at age 19 culturally or socially, if not theologically,
mandatory for young men.  (For women, a mission is truly optional--i.e.,
formally and informally.  Don't make me explain why.)  The entire youth
program of the church is focused on getting young men to serve missions
at 19.  Church leaders talk about it incessantly.  If you choose not to
go, a variety of informal social/cultural penalties are triggered.  All
your  church buddies disappear on their own missions.  People (including
your parents) wonder why you're not going, whispers of "worthiness" or
"testimony problems" circulate in the hallway.  Active Mormon women
won't date you, or won't date you seriously.  In youth congregations you
won't be considered for the more responsible callings.  You're viewed as
spiritually "less than."

It is possible to serve a mission at a later age--my recollection is
that young men remain generally eligible until age 25, and occasional
dispensations are made for those in their late 20s.  The experience of
the church, however, is that those who don't serve at 19 get caught up
by life--school, work, women, marriage, etc.--and rarely serve at a
later date.  Hence the focus on 19.

Of course, once you get married and settle into a Mormon ward, no one is
going to be asking you on a regular basis, if at all, if you served a
mission.  In fact, some folks believe it's a little impolite to ask,
unless you know the person well (which, I suppose, is evidence of the
informal belief that good Mormons serve a mission).

The bottom line is that there is no doubt among active Mormons--really,
none--that if one's aspiration is to be a fully active, believing Mormon
male who faithfullly lives the principles of the church, then you serve
a mission, and you serve it when you're 19.

To reiterate a point that someone else suggested, I have little
confidence that a court gathering evidence and trying to make a finding
on this point would get it right.

Fred

Frederick Mark Gedicks
Guy Anderson Chair & Professor of Law
Brigham Young University Law School
504 JRCB
Provo, UT 84602-8000
(801) 422-4533
(801) 422-0391(fax)
gedicksf at lawgate.byu.edu

_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly
or wrongly) forward the messages to others.

_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly
or wrongly) forward the messages to others.


Paul Finkelman
President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law
     and Public Policy
Albany Law School
80 New Scotland Avenue
Albany, New York   12208-3494

518-445-3386 
pfink at albanylaw.edu