Marcus Morris on THE JIMMER

I don't know if this article from SI has been talked about, though I do know the cover has.



Marcus Morris Talks Jimmer



http://sincaatourney.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/05coveran.gif?w=442&h=575" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">



But in an article in that SI, Morris talked a little bit about THE JIMMER and what he thought of him. Morris and THE JIMMER were teammates in Las Vegas during the USA Basketball [Select] camp.

“He’s got heart. You can see he has a feel for the game, and he can SHOOT IT from anywhere. Even if you try to box-and-one the guy, he brings it up and just pulls up from the hashmark. That’s tough to guard.



“He’s a great kid, too, if you’ve ever met Tyrel Reed on our team, he’s like that — Christian kid, is open about a lot of stuff.



“Jimmer works hard too. We were actually roommates in Vegas at the USA camp, and he was doing push-ups and sit-ups every night. And I was like, ‘Man, that’s a hard worker,’ because I do not do push-ups or sit-ups every night.”



I then asked if Jimmer did anything else in Vegas, and this is what Morris said:



“He just read his Bible. Maybe he went out to eat with his friends, but he came right back in, and he went to sleep early. He was over 21, and he didn’t gamble, anything like that. We were in Vegas, and he went to sleep early. But that’s just the type of guy he is — he doesn’t change for anybody.”

This is good stuff--- thanks again, urroner.

I think someone posted this before, but it was nice to read again. Some time ago there was a thread about Jimmer not going on a mission, and whether that was OK. I contend that in his way, Jimmer is one of the best missionaries we've had. This kind of example is one that makes people want to know more.

Great stuff.

Yes, larger "footprint" for good than Steve Young at this point in their athletic careers. And I hold Steve in high regard for the "much good" he has done with the goods he was given and worked hard for.

Jimmer has done the same, thus far.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

So now all bishops should be telling the YM:



"Every young man should go on a mission...unless you're really good at sports"



Why couldn't Jimmer go on a mission AND be an awesome athlete member missionary? I guess the Austin Collie's of the Church are few...

byufan4ever wrote:
So now all bishops should be telling the YM:



"Every young man should go on a mission...unless you're really good at sports"



Why couldn't Jimmer go on a mission AND be an awesome athlete member missionary? I guess the Austin Collie's of the Church are few...

And I have more respect for the Collies of the world, then the Jimmers.

byufan4ever wrote:
So now all bishops should be telling the YM:



"Every young man should go on a mission...unless you're really good at sports"



Why couldn't Jimmer go on a mission AND be an awesome athlete member missionary? I guess the Austin Collie's of the Church are few...

I think that it should be on a case by case basis if a young man goes on a mission or not. As a rule, all young men should go on missions, but what is the principle that rule is based upon. The principle isn't "do a two year mission," rather it's "do what the Lord wants me to do." Does the Lord want THE JIMMER to serve a two year mission or do something else. That is between the Lord and THE JIMMER and I know very few people who are in the position to decide whether THE JIMMER's decision to play ball is the wrong choice and that he should have gone on a two year mission.



I encourage every young man in the Church to serve a two year mission, but I don't demand it. What I do expect is that they prepare themselves to be able to serve a two year mission.



When I was YM president years ago and the children of Israel hadn't quite made it through their 40 year journey, Bishop Moses and I were talking about setting some goals for the YM and we added "Go on a mission" on the list. Half way through the discussion, bishop stopped the meeting and said that that goal needed to be removed. I questioned him why and he said that we needed to, instead, make that goal "go through the temple."



We lived in a small ward in Florida and in the whole history of the ward, we had had about 10 missionaries leave. That's not a lot. Of the 17 priests in the ward for the next year, and for some reason we had a lot of priests and teachers, 13 or them went on missions. Of the four who didn't go, all of their names started with "J" by the way, two of them met non-member girls, married them and were sealed in the temple a couple of years later. Of the twelve teachers at the time, eight of them also went on missions.



We let the YM know that we did expect them to go on missions, but if they didn't, we wouldn't condemn them or deride their decision. We wouldn't even be disappointed, but if they didn't go through the temple and be sealed with their future wives and children, then we would be disappointed, but we wouldn't condemn them. That isn't our job to go around condemning others.

byufan4ever wrote:
So now all bishops should be telling the YM:



"Every young man should go on a mission...unless you're really good at sports"



Why couldn't Jimmer go on a mission AND be an awesome athlete member missionary? I guess the Austin Collie's of the Church are few...

The Austin Collies and the Jimmers are few. Appreciate them both for what they've done and will do.



We have no idea as to the reasons why Jimmer opted not to go on a mission. That's between him and the Lord and I hold him in equal light to the Collies of the world. Nor do I consider Collie "better" because he was able to go on a mission and become a professional athlete.



And quite frankly, not every young man should go on a mission. There are young men out there that should not be out in the field. In the last decade the Church has actually toned down the mantra. Under-prepared, emotionally unstable and mentally or physically handicapped young men or women should not be obligated to serve.

Gunk wrote:

So now all bishops should be telling the YM:



"Every young man should go on a mission...unless you're really good at sports"



Why couldn't Jimmer go on a mission AND be an awesome athlete member missionary? I guess the Austin Collie's of the Church are few...

The Austin Collies and the Jimmers are few. Appreciate them both for what they've done and will do.



We have no idea as to the reasons why Jimmer opted not to go on a mission. That's between him and the Lord and I hold him in equal light to the Collies of the world. Nor do I consider Collie "better" because he was able to go on a mission and become a professional athlete.



And quite frankly, not every young man should go on a mission. There are young men out there that should not be out in the field. In the last decade the Church has actually toned down the mantra. Under-prepared, emotionally unstable and mentally or physically handicapped young men or women should not be obligated to serve.

No they haven't. Unless by 'tone down the mantra' you mean 'raise the bar' so those who have committed serious sin are no longer able to go. I do agree that the church has improved in discovering those who are mentally or physically handicapped and finding other opportunities for them to serve in appropriate ways.



Just last conference President Monson himself declared that ALL worthy young men should serve. I along with Urroner will encourage and hope for every worthy young man to do so, but would never turn away from any that chooses not to, or disdain them in anyway.

urroner wrote:

So now all bishops should be telling the YM:



"Every young man should go on a mission...unless you're really good at sports"



Why couldn't Jimmer go on a mission AND be an awesome athlete member missionary? I guess the Austin Collie's of the Church are few...

I think that it should be on a case by case basis if a young man goes on a mission or not. As a rule, all young men should go on missions, but what is the principle that rule is based upon. The principle isn't "do a two year mission," rather it's "do what the Lord wants me to do." Does the Lord want THE JIMMER to serve a two year mission or do something else. That is between the Lord and THE JIMMER and I know very few people who are in the position to decide whether THE JIMMER's decision to play ball is the wrong choice and that he should have gone on a two year mission.



I encourage every young man in the Church to serve a two year mission, but I don't demand it. What I do expect is that they prepare themselves to be able to serve a two year mission.



When I was YM president years ago and the children of Israel hadn't quite made it through their 40 year journey, Bishop Moses and I were talking about setting some goals for the YM and we added "Go on a mission" on the list. Half way through the discussion, bishop stopped the meeting and said that that goal needed to be removed. I questioned him why and he said that we needed to, instead, make that goal "go through the temple."



We lived in a small ward in Florida and in the whole history of the ward, we had had about 10 missionaries leave. That's not a lot. Of the 17 priests in the ward for the next year, and for some reason we had a lot of priests and teachers, 13 or them went on missions. Of the four who didn't go, all of their names started with "J" by the way, two of them met non-member girls, married them and were sealed in the temple a couple of years later. Of the twelve teachers at the time, eight of them also went on missions.



We let the YM know that we did expect them to go on missions, but if they didn't, we wouldn't condemn them or deride their decision. We wouldn't even be disappointed, but if they didn't go through the temple and be sealed with their future wives and children, then we would be disappointed, but we wouldn't condemn them. That isn't our job to go around condemning others.

Very wise words, Uroner. Your Bishop was inspired.



Too often we set up the mission as THE GOAL and put a lot of emphasis in it. And for whatever reason a young man doesn't make it on a mission. Suddenly, he's left feeling like he failed. And often a young man goes on a mission and suddenly finds out missions aren't as glorious as he priest quorum adviser led him to believe and he finds himself dealing with quite the dilemma. And sometimes, a young man goes and serves honorably only to return from his mission wondering what else he's supposed to do with his life now that he's accomplished THE GOAL of serving a mission.



You can still get into the celestial kingdom if you haven't served a mission. A mission is not a saving ordinance.

My father wanted to serve a mission as a young man but was unable because of the Government restrictions on how many could serve at a time (I think only one or two from each ward were allowed, just post-WW2). He nevertheless led a wonderful life, and even served as a Bishop for many years. He and my mother ended up serving as missionaries in Russia while in their 70's.



Who knows, maybe Jimmer will end up as a mission president someday. He wouldn't be the first sports star to do so.



I'm surpised at the amount of judging going on here in this forum. I appreciate the comments from Gunk and Urroner. Wise words indeed.

All I know is that top athletes from BYU in terms of ability, profile, footprint in the pros and nationally, etc.,none served missions. But all still brought recognition to BYU, the church, and most still do today post-pro careers.



Of course, I refer to Young, Detmer, Ainge, and Jimmer. These four are the Mt. Rushmore of BYU sports.



Missions are great for those who serve, but if a guy chooses not to, so be it. Not a temple recommend question is all I know.

hawkwing wrote:

byufan4ever wrote:
So now all bishops should be telling the YM:



"Every young man should go on a mission...unless you're really good at sports"



Why couldn't Jimmer go on a mission AND be an awesome athlete member missionary? I guess the Austin Collie's of the Church are few...

The Austin Collies and the Jimmers are few. Appreciate them both for what they've done and will do.



We have no idea as to the reasons why Jimmer opted not to go on a mission. That's between him and the Lord and I hold him in equal light to the Collies of the world. Nor do I consider Collie "better" because he was able to go on a mission and become a professional athlete.



And quite frankly, not every young man should go on a mission. There are young men out there that should not be out in the field. In the last decade the Church has actually toned down the mantra. Under-prepared, emotionally unstable and mentally or physically handicapped young men or women should not be obligated to serve.

No they haven't. Unless by 'tone down the mantra' you mean 'raise the bar' so those who have committed serious sin are no longer able to go. I do agree that the church has improved in discovering those who are mentally or physically handicapped and finding other opportunities for them to serve in appropriate ways.



Just last conference President Monson himself declared that ALL worthy young men should serve. I along with Urroner will encourage and hope for every worthy young man to do so, but would never turn away from any that chooses not to, or disdain them in anyway.

Hawking, I encourage every young man that is worthy to serve. If they don't want to, are unable, or unworthy I don't treat them any differently than the senior couple in my ward that's served 5 missions.



I've got the manual here in front of me, since this is a public forum I'll refrain from quoting directly from it, suffice to say bishops and stake presidents are charged with identifying and encouraging young men that are physically, mentally, and emotionally able to serve. Interestingly enough, in the section that specifically mentions the charge for young men to serve missions it doesn't mention worthiness at all. Worthiness is later discussed, of course, as a qualification for all missionaries.



And there's a whole bunch more about determining outside of worthiness whether a missionary is able to go on a mission, including guidelines to follow.



Hawking, the mantra has been toned down to take into consideration those who are not able to serve because of mental, emotional, or physical reasons. Rather than preach over the pulpit that all young men are commanded to serve missions as was done in decades past and leave many young men feeling rejected, bishops and stake presidents have been advised to be sensitive of the individual and their ability to serve.



10 - 15 years ago you could not go to a session of conference without hearing some reference to all young men being commanded to serve missions. Last conference, when Monson mentioned it was the first time in a while that the prophet has referenced the edict of all young men serving missions (it stuck out to me at the time because it's been so long).

How about this:



A mission is for everyone. Not everyone is for a mission.



The "pattern", as Elder Holland called it in World Wide Leadership Training, is there. Let's leave the pattern in place and adjust it as needed on an individual basis rather than trying to design a new plan for every person.



Some aren't prepared for missions when 19-25, but go on to serve later. Others aren't capable at any time in their lives for a variety of reasons. The pattern can be hemmed, tucked, let out, or some other term my mom knows and I don't.

HoosierCougar wrote:
How about this:



A mission is for everyone. Not everyone is for a mission.



The "pattern", as Elder Holland called it in World Wide Leadership Training, is there. Let's leave the pattern in place and adjust it as needed on an individual basis rather than trying to design a new plan for every person.



Some aren't prepared for missions when 19-25, but go on to serve later. Others aren't capable at any time in their lives for a variety of reasons. The pattern can be hemmed, tucked, let out, or some other term my mom knows and I don't.

Well said, Hoosier.



And lastly, as I said before, I wouldn't treat a member who didn't serve differently than one who did. Those who would don't understand the Gospel. Unless one has a particular stewardship that requires one to act in certain way (Judge in Israel) than we should treat everyone as brothers and sisters, regardless of any other matters.

I am not judging Jimmer or anyone else for not serving a misison. I realize that it's not a saving ordinance I know many people who did not serve missions that have ended up as better people than those that did.



BUT, that does not change that the Church has said that every worthy young man should serve a mission. I don't recall a prophet saying that being an extremely good athlete is a good reason to not serve a mission. Some people on this site are basically praising Jimmer and Steve Young for not serving missions. That's great that they're doing missionary work now, but that's called being a Member Missionary.



I wish that these famous Mormons would be great examples to our youths and serve faithful missions. We shouldn't condmen them for not serving, but we shouldn't praise them either for not serving. But still, I think it would be great examples to our youth if they did go. I would rather they be great examples to our youth than something for Babylon to look at.

byufan4ever wrote:
I wish that these famous Mormons would be great examples to our youths and serve faithful missions. We shouldn't condmen them for not serving, but we shouldn't praise them either for not serving. But still, I think it would be great examples to our youth if they did go. I would rather they be great examples to our youth than something for Babylon to look at.

I don't see anybody who are praising them for not serving a mission. If you can find an example of post praising them for not serving a mission, please point that post out to me. I see people praising them for what they are doing, for the examples they are setting, but that is very different from praising them for not serving a mission.

IowaCougar wrote:
I think someone posted this before, but it was nice to read again. Some time ago there was a thread about Jimmer not going on a mission, and whether that was OK. I contend that in his way, Jimmer is one of the best missionaries we've had. This kind of example is one that makes people want to know more.

He didn't word for word say that he was praising Jimmer for not serving a mission, but put it together with the sentance before the one in red and the overall impression is there.

byufan4ever wrote:

I think someone posted this before, but it was nice to read again. Some time ago there was a thread about Jimmer not going on a mission, and whether that was OK. I contend that in his way, Jimmer is one of the best missionaries we've had. This kind of example is one that makes people want to know more.

He didn't word for word say that he was praising Jimmer for not serving a mission, but put it together with the sentance before the one in red and the overall impression is there.

I didn't read it that way

Don't lost hope yet. Maybe Collinsworth will come back as a superstar. The kid looks really good and he's only a freshman. By the time he's a junior, who knows! Of course, he could also come back and have a terrible injury, like his brother....