NOM

Another thought that came to my mind while reading this thread is that now there's an excuse for having fewer missionaries in the field and closing extra missions. Higher standards that are harder to meet, though I suspect that, besides the legal aspect, the leaders might be tired of the horde of missionaries who have been returning early. Doesn't look good. Doesn't feel good. Stronger vetting standards would seem the obvious solution. Perhaps (hopefully) a byproduct of this will be more acceptance, eventually, of those who don't serve missions.

Coop wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2017 10:19 am I always look at these types of procedural changes through a legal lens. Question number six, seven, eight, and nine are prime examples.

To me when the Church mandates using these types of question it is simply a matter of them doing their due diligence when calling these young people. Then, if these young people misbehave, they are responsible and not the Church.

Coop, welcome to the NOM 2.0 forum.