Jake Heaps and the "Football/Tebow Mission"

I know I'll probably get reamed for this, but am I the only one who is a little disappointed that Heaps is talking about football as his mission a'la Tebow?



#1 -- I wish he would serve a mission

#2 -- If he's not going to serve a mission, don't try and make us believe that your pursuit of football is for some higher cause. Just say, "I'm not going on a mission" and suit up and play. I liked that when the announcers were talking about Heaps and a mission, Announcer A quoted Heaps as saying (in reference to mission plans) that he would follow the Tim Tebow model and use the game of football as a vehicle to spread his message, and then Announcer B interjects--"So he's not going on a mission is what he means."



Making football your mission just makes you look weaker in my eyes--almost like you know you should go, but you don't want to, so you try and come up with your own compromise to make it look like you are trying to do the right thing.



If you're not going to do a mission, that's fine. It's a personal choice and I can't pretend to know all your reasons. However, don't try to cheapen the sacrifice and diligence of the thousands who do go every year by purporting to serve a mission in pads, without sacrificing a single thing....except a two-year mission.

snoscythe wrote:
I know I'll probably get reamed for this, but am I the only one who is a little disappointed that Heaps is talking about football as his mission a'la Tebow?



#1 -- I wish he would serve a mission

#2 -- If he's not going to serve a mission, don't try and make us believe that your pursuit of football is for some higher cause. Just say, "I'm not going on a mission" and suit up and play. I liked that when the announcers were talking about Heaps and a mission, Announcer A quoted Heaps as saying (in reference to mission plans) that he would follow the Tim Tebow model and use the game of football as a vehicle to spread his message, and then Announcer B interjects--"So he's not going on a mission is what he means."



Making football your mission just makes you look weaker in my eyes--almost like you know you should go, but you don't want to, so you try and come up with your own compromise to make it look like you are trying to do the right thing.



If you're not going to do a mission, that's fine. It's a personal choice and I can't pretend to know all your reasons. However, don't try to cheapen the sacrifice and diligence of the thousands who do go every year by purporting to serve a mission in pads, without sacrificing a single thing....except a two-year mission.

100% agree. When will we learn that being straight up and truthful is always better than trying to spin and rationalize?

BoiseBYU wrote:

I know I'll probably get reamed for this, but am I the only one who is a little disappointed that Heaps is talking about football as his mission a'la Tebow?



#1 -- I wish he would serve a mission

#2 -- If he's not going to serve a mission, don't try and make us believe that your pursuit of football is for some higher cause. Just say, "I'm not going on a mission" and suit up and play. I liked that when the announcers were talking about Heaps and a mission, Announcer A quoted Heaps as saying (in reference to mission plans) that he would follow the Tim Tebow model and use the game of football as a vehicle to spread his message, and then Announcer B interjects--"So he's not going on a mission is what he means."



Making football your mission just makes you look weaker in my eyes--almost like you know you should go, but you don't want to, so you try and come up with your own compromise to make it look like you are trying to do the right thing.



If you're not going to do a mission, that's fine. It's a personal choice and I can't pretend to know all your reasons. However, don't try to cheapen the sacrifice and diligence of the thousands who do go every year by purporting to serve a mission in pads, without sacrificing a single thing....except a two-year mission.

100% agree. When will we learn that being straight up and truthful is always better than trying to spin and rationalize?

I agree, but that's a lesson most adult LDS members don't understand, look at Harry Reid. Heaps is still just a kid and probably is working to convince himself as much as he is anybody else.

I don't see what's so wrong about saying that you want to be like Tebow and represent your faith through football. That in and of itself is saying that you're not going on a mission. He wasn't dishonest as far as I'm concerned and he wasn't beating around the bush.

snoscythe wrote:
I know I'll probably get reamed for this, but am I the only one who is a little disappointed that Heaps is talking about football as his mission a'la Tebow?



#1 -- I wish he would serve a mission

#2 -- If he's not going to serve a mission, don't try and make us believe that your pursuit of football is for some higher cause. Just say, "I'm not going on a mission" and suit up and play. I liked that when the announcers were talking about Heaps and a mission, Announcer A quoted Heaps as saying (in reference to mission plans) that he would follow the Tim Tebow model and use the game of football as a vehicle to spread his message, and then Announcer B interjects--"So he's not going on a mission is what he means."



Making football your mission just makes you look weaker in my eyes--almost like you know you should go, but you don't want to, so you try and come up with your own compromise to make it look like you are trying to do the right thing.



If you're not going to do a mission, that's fine. It's a personal choice and I can't pretend to know all your reasons. However, don't try to cheapen the sacrifice and diligence of the thousands who do go every year by purporting to serve a mission in pads, without sacrificing a single thing....except a two-year mission.

Couldn't disagree with you more on #1. I think that every skill position at BYU should serve a four year mission at LES. Let the linemen go on church missions, preferrably to countries with good food...

snoscythe wrote:
I know I'll probably get reamed for this, but am I the only one who is a little disappointed that Heaps is talking about football as his mission a'la Tebow?



#1 -- I wish he would serve a mission

#2 -- If he's not going to serve a mission, don't try and make us believe that your pursuit of football is for some higher cause. Just say, "I'm not going on a mission" and suit up and play. I liked that when the announcers were talking about Heaps and a mission, Announcer A quoted Heaps as saying (in reference to mission plans) that he would follow the Tim Tebow model and use the game of football as a vehicle to spread his message, and then Announcer B interjects--"So he's not going on a mission is what he means."



Making football your mission just makes you look weaker in my eyes--almost like you know you should go, but you don't want to, so you try and come up with your own compromise to make it look like you are trying to do the right thing.



If you're not going to do a mission, that's fine. It's a personal choice and I can't pretend to know all your reasons. However, don't try to cheapen the sacrifice and diligence of the thousands who do go every year by purporting to serve a mission in pads, without sacrificing a single thing....except a two-year mission.

I agree 100%

ABYUFAN wrote:

I know I'll probably get reamed for this, but am I the only one who is a little disappointed that Heaps is talking about football as his mission a'la Tebow?



#1 -- I wish he would serve a mission

#2 -- If he's not going to serve a mission, don't try and make us believe that your pursuit of football is for some higher cause. Just say, "I'm not going on a mission" and suit up and play. I liked that when the announcers were talking about Heaps and a mission, Announcer A quoted Heaps as saying (in reference to mission plans) that he would follow the Tim Tebow model and use the game of football as a vehicle to spread his message, and then Announcer B interjects--"So he's not going on a mission is what he means."



Making football your mission just makes you look weaker in my eyes--almost like you know you should go, but you don't want to, so you try and come up with your own compromise to make it look like you are trying to do the right thing.



If you're not going to do a mission, that's fine. It's a personal choice and I can't pretend to know all your reasons. However, don't try to cheapen the sacrifice and diligence of the thousands who do go every year by purporting to serve a mission in pads, without sacrificing a single thing....except a two-year mission.

I agree 100%

If he'd go right now, come back in spring of 2012, he would be almost guaranteed to be the starter for 3-4 years, potentially becoming one of BYU's greatest ever QBs. I think we also understand what some of the additional benefits come from serving a mission. Having said that, I know we are trying not to, but we are judging the kid for the decision he is making, at least he has some intention to still represent his faith, look at Trent P. or Jimmer F. I love those guys (although my opinion of Trent has depreciated to almost zero), Jake seems to be a step above those guys (and others) in terms of commitment to the Gospel and maturity.

cougarsunited wrote:
Having said that, I know we are trying not to, but we are judging the kid for the decision he is making, at least he has some intention to still represent his faith, look at Trent P. or Jimmer F. I love those guys (although my opinion of Trent has depreciated to almost zero), Jake seems to be a step above those guys (and others) in terms of commitment to the Gospel and maturity.

The difference to me is this: Jimmer and Trent never insinuated that their play would substitute for a mission. They just didn't go. Heaps seems to be taking the tack that football will be a substitute. I don't know that I would make the judgment that Jake is above Jimmer or Trent as far as commitment to the Gospel goes....I have no clue how you make that assessment.



As far as the judging thing goes: thank you for judging me. As a parent, I reserve the right to opine when someone is setting a good example and when they are not.

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.

frdbtr 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.

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.

Is there a direct quote out there of Heaps talking about this or do we just know what the announcers said about it?

Short_Change wrote:
Is there a direct quote out there of Heaps talking about [his mission] or do we just know what the announcers said about it?

Announcer A said he asked Heaps if he was going to serve a two-year mission, and Heaps said he would like to follow Tebow and share his message through football. At which point Announcer B, said "So basically he's not going." And Announcer A concurred in the assessment.



DJ and PK further reported that "During the high school all-star football game in San Antonio, Jake Heaps said he was going to serve a mission similar to that of Tim Tebow."



http://www.facebook.com/djandpk



So, no, there is no direct quote available. But there are two sources reporting that Heaps has referenced a "Tebow mission" when directly asked about a two-year mission.



FWIW, I think this idea of a "Tebow mission" has the fingerprints of a publicist all over it.

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.

I have to agree. I have absolutely no doubt that Teo, Heaps, etc can make a bigger impact on the non-mormon world by not going on a mission, there is something to be said about going on a mission "cuz yer 'sposed tuh." This is the part of the post where I talk about bathing seven times in Jordan and last-shall-be-first and all that, but I won't. I'll just say that being below the absolute bottom rung of the social totem pole for two years is pure catharsis for the 19 year-old heart, I'd imagine this is especially true for the 19 year-old hearts that have been fawned over by the media since they were 14.

Once while I was on my mission (mid 60's) in an evening, or prep time - I can't remember that far back, I decided to put some math to the scriptures "worlds without number have I created" and "all that I have shall be given thee". I came up with a number (How accurate can that be when one of the variables is "worlds without number") Just by cooincidence, a week or two later, while tracting, I got this question: "How much are they paying you guys to do this?" No hesitation, I gave him my number: "six trillion dollars per hour"



None of these guys can hope to touch it with an NFL contract. And sorry, my figure was (is) probably low.



Steve Young says his biggest regret is not serving a mission. I guess so - six trillion times about 6000 hours is a tidy sum.

Alphaleonis wrote:
Once while I was on my mission (mid 60's) in an evening, or prep time - I can't remember that far back, I decided to put some math to the scriptures "worlds without number have I created" and "all that I have shall be given thee". I came up with a number (How accurate can that be when one of the variables is "worlds without number") Just by cooincidence, a week or two later, while tracting, I got this question: "How much are they paying you guys to do this?" No hesitation, I gave him my number: "six trillion dollars per hour"



None of these guys can hope to touch it with an NFL contract. And sorry, my figure was (is) probably low.



Steve Young says his biggest regret is not serving a mission. I guess so - six trillion times about 6000 hours is a tidy sum.

Just imagine what that is when you adjust for inflation!

I am amazed, but not surprised, at the number of posts that judge Jake and then fall all over themselves trying to say that they aren't.



The hypocrisy is hilarious. If you want to judge Jake then just do it. Don't try to couch it in that he is setting a bad example.

northerncougar wrote:
I am amazed, but not surprised, at the number of posts that judge Jake and then fall all over themselves trying to say that they aren't.

Please do give that number. By my unoffical count, that number is zero, but I'd be willing to consider your suggestions of posts that you believe fit that description...

:whistle:

snoscythe wrote:
I know I'll probably get reamed for this, but am I the only one who is a little disappointed that Heaps is talking about football as his mission a'la Tebow?



#1 -- I wish he would serve a mission

#2 -- If he's not going to serve a mission, don't try and make us believe that your pursuit of football is for some higher cause. Just say, "I'm not going on a mission" and suit up and play. I liked that when the announcers were talking about Heaps and a mission, Announcer A quoted Heaps as saying (in reference to mission plans) that he would follow the Tim Tebow model and use the game of football as a vehicle to spread his message, and then Announcer B interjects--"So he's not going on a mission is what he means."



Making football your mission just makes you look weaker in my eyes--almost like you know you should go, but you don't want to, so you try and come up with your own compromise to make it look like you are trying to do the right thing.



If you're not going to do a mission, that's fine. It's a personal choice and I can't pretend to know all your reasons. However, don't try to cheapen the sacrifice and diligence of the thousands who do go every year by purporting to serve a mission in pads, without sacrificing a single thing....except a two-year mission.

1

BoiseBYU wrote:

I know I'll probably get reamed for this, but am I the only one who is a little disappointed that Heaps is talking about football as his mission a'la Tebow?



#1 -- I wish he would serve a mission

#2 -- If he's not going to serve a mission, don't try and make us believe that your pursuit of football is for some higher cause. Just say, "I'm not going on a mission" and suit up and play. I liked that when the announcers were talking about Heaps and a mission, Announcer A quoted Heaps as saying (in reference to mission plans) that he would follow the Tim Tebow model and use the game of football as a vehicle to spread his message, and then Announcer B interjects--"So he's not going on a mission is what he means."



Making football your mission just makes you look weaker in my eyes--almost like you know you should go, but you don't want to, so you try and come up with your own compromise to make it look like you are trying to do the right thing.



If you're not going to do a mission, that's fine. It's a personal choice and I can't pretend to know all your reasons. However, don't try to cheapen the sacrifice and diligence of the thousands who do go every year by purporting to serve a mission in pads, without sacrificing a single thing....except a two-year mission.

100% agree. When will we learn that being straight up and truthful is always better than trying to spin and rationalize?

2

snoscythe wrote:

Having said that, I know we are trying not to, but we are judging the kid for the decision he is making, at least he has some intention to still represent his faith, look at Trent P. or Jimmer F. I love those guys (although my opinion of Trent has depreciated to almost zero), Jake seems to be a step above those guys (and others) in terms of commitment to the Gospel and maturity.

The difference to me is this: Jimmer and Trent never insinuated that their play would substitute for a mission. They just didn't go. Heaps seems to be taking the tack that football will be a substitute. I don't know that I would make the judgment that Jake is above Jimmer or Trent as far as commitment to the Gospel goes....I have no clue how you make that assessment.



As far as the judging thing goes: thank you for judging me. As a parent, I reserve the right to opine when someone is setting a good example and when they are not.

3