Obese Missionaries Need Not Apply

[Gameface]

yeah. It's opposite day.

Wait, does that mean it's actually not opposite day?

 

[b_line]

The sign said "Obese Missionaries Need Not Apply".

Ok actually, it was a question on the online questionnaire we were filling out for my daughter to put in her "papers" to get her mission call. It asked if you are obese. She clicked yes and it immediately gave her a message that said she would have to lose weight to serve a mission. We have had missionaries over for dinner nearly monthly for most of our marriage (over 20 years), and especially recently, and have had more than a few that would be termed morbidly obese. So, are they setting up kids to lie to go on their missions? Or do they just want young thin people representing the church? What is the reasoning behind this, any ideas?

I knew a kid on my mission that had to lose 100+ pounds to go on a mission, and was still the biggest kid on the mission. He must have been over 400 pounds. I also had a companion that was like 5'8" and 350 at the start of his mission. Maybe the rules have changed a bit since I was out there. I thought before, it was purely health concerns that drove the weight loss thing, you know, not wanting kids out there having heart attacks after they ride their bike for like 40 miles a day. When I did my papers, they had a height/weight requirement that we had to follow. It was pretty liberal back then, like 11 years ago.

 

[LogGrad98]

I have many concerns about this, not the least of which is the pressure it could put kids under to lie on the application to skirt this "requirement". I know my daughter feels she can perform the duties necessary, and she has been working on her conditioning, but the BMI is a very out-dated and poor reflection of physical conditioning and still shows she is morbidly obese, when, not to be too revealing or inappropriate, she is a 5'4" and a 32 triple F bust size and probably carries around enough weight in her breasts to push her over the BMI limits regardless of her actual body fat content. She did the right thing and indicated that according to their standard she is obese, and that is probably accurate in any case, but she was very tempted to tweak the numbers to avoid this as an issue and delay her going on her mission.

When I went on my mission, also in 1989 (not sure if colton wants this to get out, or even remembers, but we went into the MTC at the same time going to the same mission, but in different MTC districts), I was definitely overweight, at just under 6'2" and about 280 lbs. I came home at nearly 6'3" and 215 pounds, so physically the mission did me good. But even at my weight beforehand I had always been in pretty good shape, having played 3 sports and still remaining very active in basketball and other sports (played competitive racquetball for a while), so I had no problem keeping up, but I would definitely not have met the "specs" to go on the current application form.

I also can understand wanting to raise the bar, and ideally that would be the case that kids are preparing for their mission from the time they are 16. But I know from my own experience, and now with 3 of my kids having moved through these years, that this is a rough time for kids. Things change rapidly. Their hormonal changes can spur great changes in attitude, behavior, feelings, everything. I didn't make the decision to go until the month before I put in my papers. My daughter wanted to go, but had a high school sweetheart that she thought she would marry, so she had her mind and heart set on that first, a mission second. Now it worked out differently and she wants to serve a mission, but isn't as prepared as she could have been. Some of the best missionaries I knew were last-second deciders. I just wonder how many kids they are alienating if they make this process any more difficult.

But I guess that is another good question, should it be difficult, at the risk of pushing some kids away. Is "losing" some kids worth it to make sure the kids that go are the best they can be? Is it a winnowing process in which the ones who just "can't hang" are weeded out so they don't taint the field later?

Seems counter to the mission of the church to me, which most succinctly stated would be "to bring about the immortality and eternal life of man". Wouldn't that mean equal opportunity for all, and not just those that are lucky enough to be in good shape, or are able to get things straight for themselves years ahead of time during what for most kids is a pretty chaotic time in their lives? I find that just a little disturbing. Admissions requirements for BYU is one thing, space is limited. The church has neither limited space, nor limited funds when it comes right down to it, when it comes to missionary service, and anyone who feels the spirit prompt them to serve should be given that chance, shouldn't they? Regardless of concerns about financial liability.

Either it is governed by revelation, both personal and by proxy say through a bishop, or it is regulated by regulations. I don't see the 2 coexisting very harmoniously when the decision is such a personal thing and not some over-arching canonical teaching.

 

[green]

I bet you 100% that this is a money issue. It's the same reason why the church wants you to get your wisdom teeth out before you leave on your mission. If they are gone, the church won't have to pay for any issues that might arise from problems caused by wisdom teeth.

It's the same reason that the articles of faith talk about obeying the laws of the land, yet the church has not problem putting felons (illegal aliens) in positions of authority and giving those people temple recommends.

My mission president would always tell me that decisions/callings/etc are always dictated by inspiration or desperation. The point is, it is not always black and white. The Church makes exceptions to a lot of things that we are told is black and white (like breaking the law and the word of wisdom) and there is always a "but".

Just know that we are all imperfect people (me more than most), and the church is true and the church is trying to deal with all of us. Sometimes is is confusing or looks shady. That is where your testimony carries you through, and you realize that you do what you have to do and let God sort out all this other garbage.

 

[b_line]

I bet you 100% that this is a money issue. It's the same reason why the church wants you to get your wisdom teeth out before you leave on your mission. If they are gone, the church won't have to pay for any issues that might arise from problems caused by wisdom teeth.

It's the same reason that the articles of faith talk about obeying the laws of the land, yet the church has not problem putting felons (illegal aliens) in positions of authority and giving those people temple recommends.

My mission president would always tell me that decisions/callings/etc are always dictated by inspiration or desperation. The point is, it is not always black and white. The Church makes exceptions to a lot of things that we are told is black and white (like breaking the law and the word of wisdom) and there is always a "but".

Just know that we are all imperfect people (me more than most), and the church is true and the church is trying to deal with all of us. Sometimes is is confusing or looks shady. That is where your testimony carries you through, and you realize that you do what you have to do and let God sort out all this other garbage.

I think the money issue is more complicated than "the church does not want to pay for it." What about the kids from Mexico or the Philippines that can barely afford to go on a mission, who will have to pay more if the cost goes up due to medical costs? The church has kept the cost of missions down by subsidizing it with tithing and the missionary fund, but kids and parents will still have to pay some of the cost. I just don't believe that the church is callously saying "it comes down to economics, and we aren't paying for the chubby's.

That said, what about in the D&C where it says "if ye have desires to serve god, ye are called to the work..."? I hate that there are kids who have such a strong desire to serve a mission that never get to go. I have personal experience with this, because my bishop when I was 19 was way too strict. He didn't let any of the kids my age go on missions, for one reason or another, so we all had to wait until he was released a few months later, and then went when the new bishop asked us all to go. The first guy was crazy. He wouldn't let kids go on missions if they had fought with their parents in the last six months. Not even bad stuff, the guy just thought we should all be perfect in order to be missionaries.

Log Bro, I hope your daughter gets to go on a mission, it is a great experience, as you probably know. And hopefully her experiencing the adversity of trying to be able to go will make her a better, more sympathetic person.

 

[LogGrad98]

Thanks b. I am sure we will get her there. The bishop here is very excited for the youth to serve and he has been great. She is working through all the current requirements, including a new one to me that they serve in the temple before they go. Not sure if that is a local thing or a church-wide thing, but she will be a temple worker for a month or so while waiting for her call, and she is really excited about that. I think that is a good idea. I went through the temple all of once before I went on my mission and it kind of left a funny taste in my mouth since it was before they changed it to exclude certain, let's just say unsavory, parts.

 

[b_line]

Thanks b. I am sure we will get her there. The bishop here is very excited for the youth to serve and he has been great. She is working through all the current requirements, including a new one to me that they serve in the temple before they go. Not sure if that is a local thing or a church-wide thing, but she will be a temple worker for a month or so while waiting for her call, and she is really excited about that. I think that is a good idea. I went through the temple all of once before I went on my mission and it kind of left a funny taste in my mouth since it was before they changed it to exclude certain, let's just say unsavory, parts.

That temple requirement is new to me. seems like a good idea though. I felt the same way as you about the temple going into my mission. It is good that you have a good bishop that actually cares about the people, it seems. That is the only thing that makes the church have any truth, imo.

 

[Deleted member 365]

I had a friend in high school who was 380 lbs. He put in his mission papers (back when they used papers and not an electronic system) and received a letter from church HQ saying that he needed to lose like 100 lbs and reapply. He did so... And was called to Brasilia in Brazil. He then lost another 100 lbs while serving. He came back a far better man both spiritually and physically. There was no chance in hell he could have served at nearly 400 lbs. Just fitting into the airplane for the 15 hr flight would have been challenging.

Missions are extremely physically demanding. Not necessarily on a day sprint basis. I played 3 sports in HS so to me nothing was worse than hell week in 2001 (record setting temperatures in Aug). However, 13-14 months into the mission I really began to feel it in my hips, ankles, knees, and back. I was only 170 lbs too. But walking up and down those hills 4-8 miles per day in Brazil while carrying mission materials was really taxing. There's no way I could have done that weighing double what I did. No way.

So I think most of the concern is for the well-being of the missionaries. However, there probably is a concern appearance. I know that recently at the MTC in Provo they've set up make-up and hair classes for the sisters. I don't know how extensive they are. I'm pretty sure they're more on the basics of how to make yourself look good despite living on a missionary's budget, timetable, and/or living in a 3rd world country.

I would say an irony I do see in the church was what Green brought up a few posts ago... The Word of Wisdom is all about controlling your passions and living "wisely." Obesity is prevalent in leadership positions (both male and female). Part of it is genetics. Part of it is just stress and the busy lifestyle. Part of it probably is due to falling into the passion of eating crap and not working out.

 

[bigb]

Like everything else in this world, there's probably a work around to this. A person could probably go to a doctor and get a note saying despite being obese, there are no other health concerns. For example, I didn't get my wisdom teeth removed before I went. My dentist said they would probably never be an issue. I still have them all these years later (I'm 35) and have never had an issue. Despite being an "extremely large person", I have no other health risks. No heart issues, no blood pressure issues, no diabeetus concerns, nothing to worry about at all. But I have always been active. I have a physically demanding job, I've always played sports, I'm constantly out playing with my kids and wrestling with them, etc.

 

[colton]

I have many concerns about this, not the least of which is the pressure it could put kids under to lie on the application to skirt this "requirement".

I agree that we should avoid policies which penalize those who tell the truth. But kudos to her for not stretching the truth in this matter.

... the BMI is a very out-dated and poor reflection of physical conditioning...

I agree 100% there. I looked into this once out of curiosity and found that the BMI actually is only a mediocre measurement of obesity, but it has the advantage of being a very quick measure. As someone else in the thread said, it may well be that her doctor could provide a better measure that the church would accept.

When I went on my mission, also in 1989 (not sure if colton wants this to get out, or even remembers, but we went into the MTC at the same time going to the same mission, but in different MTC districts)...

Of course I remember! And no problem with you mentioning that.

But I guess that is another good question, should it be difficult, at the risk of pushing some kids away. Is "losing" some kids worth it to make sure the kids that go are the best they can be? Is it a winnowing process in which the ones who just "can't hang" are weeded out so they don't taint the field later?

Are they all being lost, though? It seems like in your daughter's case, this didn't change her mind, it motivated her to lose a little weight and apply again in a month or two. Or that's what you seem to be saying, anyway. So maybe THAT's what intended with the rule--not to drive kids away, but to help them be better prepared. (Although I do admit the risk was there for her to change her mind.)

In other news my own daughter (17 yrs) is planning on going on a mission at 19. She's very skinny and not very physically active, so while she won't have issues with the BMI requirement, I'm definitely going to show her the quotes I posted earlier in the thread about being able to walk & bike.

 

[colton]

Just know that we are all imperfect people (me more than most), and the church is true and the church is trying to deal with all of us. Sometimes is is confusing or looks shady. That is where your testimony carries you through, and you realize that you do what you have to do and let God sort out all this other garbage.

Very well put.