An interesting discussion of the Church’s dilemma and turning point relative to national military service can be found in Robert C. Freeman, (Ed.), “Nineteenth Century Saints at War” published by BYU’s Religious Studies Center in 2006. The pertinent section of the book was written by James I. Mangum, pages 151-193.

In 1898, A major question and debate came about as the “baby” state of Utah, just two years old, was asked to support the nation in going to war with Spain in Cuba and the Philippines. President Wilford Woodruff foresaw the separation of the Church from national service an impediment to its future growth and that the Church needed to support the government. Others, including and led by Brigham Young, Jr. of the Twelve, B.H. Roberts, and other prominent leaders, strongly opposed the idea. The April 1898 conference included some talks on the issue. Eventually, President Woodruff made it clear that he was acting as President of the Church in calling for the national loyalty of the LDS people. Utah sent its national guard units into the conflict as soon as it became a reality. Young men of the Church were urged to volunteer. This action was an order of magnitude greater than the miniscule effort provided in the Civil War with Lot Smith’s mail patrol in 1862. In Cuba and the Philippines, members of the Church served with distinction in many battles and skirmishes, with some being killed, wounded and dying of disease.

I’m curious as to how well the Venturing program has infiltrated LDS units. My statistically unsound surveys of friends’ units suggests that the only boys who actively participate in Venturing (where it’s offered) are either the children of hard-core Scouters or 16- and 17-year-olds who haven’t finished their Eagle yet. Generally speaking, if a boy has earned his Eagle at 15, by the time he’s a priest he’s only participating in DTG activities or social activities as a YM.

It seemed easy to tell his preference: Missionary work. Then again, he was a missionary first and then became a soldier. Inferred in his letters was that there could be no reverse order — one wouldn’t qualify for a mission later if he’d been serving as a soldier at 19.

But from what I’ve seen, the military doesn’t provide the focused spiritual training

It doesn’t?? Gee, after just reading the real meaning behind the acronyms SNAFU, JANFU, FUBAR, etc. (which, if you can’t guess, are not printable in a family blog like this one), I couldn’t have guessed that the military didn’t provide a wonderful, rich, spiritual atmosphere.

Re#12, Career planning used to be part of scouting’s “Explorer” program for 16-17 year olds, but the Church has now moved to the BSA “Venture” program, which eliminates career planning on weeknight activities.

Re #9: I do think that there was a time when military service was seen as an acceptable substitute to missionary service. (And still is in some areas. Most of the wards I have lived in print the servicemen’s address along with the missionaries in the ward bulletin; a few have even made plaques for the soldiers that hang in the foyers next to the elders.) But from what I’ve seen, the military doesn’t provide the focused spiritual training the Church wants YM to experience. So they’ve moved away from that.
That said, I had several cousins and missionary companions that joined the service at 18 and received a two-year deferrment for their missions. In every case, the military sent them regular letters their entire mission reminding them of their future obligation.

Done properly (and from all I can tell, the wards in my stake do it properly), YW is about Scouting and Duty to God, not about recreation and sports (our ward has a terrible basketball team, which practices only when the stake insists on having a tournament).

There are ample opportunities in the Scouting and DTG programs to focus on career planning, etc.

(Frankly, what concerns me is the lack of career planning in the YW program, now that I have a daughter there and can observe it better.)

There was a time, I think, when Church leaders viewed military service as just as adequate preparation as missionary service

I have heard that it wasn’t a matter of preparation, but of time: the young men who had spent three or four or more years in the military service were advised that they need not feel themselves under obligation to devote yet another two to three years to missionary service. (Many foreign language missions were two and one-half years at that time, and Japanese language missions were three years.)

Ardis, I’ll let you track down the official statement of that policy–I heard it from my dad, who spent three years in the army, was discharged in summer 1946, about five months after he turned 20, and chose to serve a mission despite the policy. (Maybe things would have been different had he been 23 or 24. And certainly would have been if that lovely Viennese girl had shown some willingness to convert from the Catholicism of her youth to Mormonism.)

On the other end we have 13 grandsons between 11 and 20 years old. I am consistenly trying to get there first and as frequently and as strongly as the military recruiters to not sign anything until you are back from your mission. My version of life planning is to work hard enough to get a scholarship for at least your first year of college (so far all of them have done it who are old enough) get a year of college in, then go on your mission and then if the military still looks attractive to you, you will have a lot more basis for making an intelligent decision. I do think some people feel called to the military–including a couple of these dear young men in my life, but I do hope they will wait. And I do think I have some influence with them.