- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
During the last church training I received it was explicitly stated that the primary reason for missions is for the missionary, not the convert (although that is a close second place). Reading the article that DJ shared along with what I’ve heard from church leaders is that missions will hopefully strengthen the individual missionaries in the long run. I hope that includes a higher likelihood that all missionaries, both YM and YW, will finish some sort of post high school college or training. My mission had the opposite influence on my grades than what I almost always hear. I learned to loosen up a little and not take grades so seriously although serving in a mission where literacy rate was low I became convinced it’s vital to get a post high school education.
Roadrunner wrote:During the last church training I received it was explicitly stated that the primary reason for missions is for the missionary, not the convert
Yes, it helps establish an us and them attitude, and everyone who looks at your CV will wonder where you were for two years, if you don’t tell them.
I’ve never agreed with this reasoning for missions. Missions are for OTHER people.
Quote:whereas no one will second-guess LDS women that don’t want to serve a mission the way they typically do for young men.
Actually, that’s not necessarily the case. Due to the change, there was an article in the BYU paper about it, stating that the trend had already taken hold that if boys don’t serve by 18, there was something wrong with them (worthiness) and if girls don’t serve at 19, they were beginning to be seen as unmarriagable just like non-RM boys were. The article was trying to restore the idea that for girls it is optional, and yet, the culture was pushing that there’s no “excuse” not to go at 19 since that’s too young to get married anyway.
hawkgrrrl wrote:Quote:whereas no one will second-guess LDS women that don’t want to serve a mission the way they typically do for young men.
Actually, that’s not necessarily the case. Due to the change, there was an article in the BYU paper about it, stating that the trend had already taken hold that if boys don’t serve by 18, there was something wrong with them (worthiness) and if girls don’t serve at 19, they were beginning to be seen as unmarriagable just like non-RM boys were. The article was trying to restore the idea that for girls it is optional, and yet, the culture was pushing that there’s no “excuse” not to go at 19 since that’s too young to get married anyway.
I have seen this already also. Good luck on changing that perception. With church culture the way it is, I expect it to be all but inevitable.LookingHard wrote:hawkgrrrl wrote:Quote:whereas no one will second-guess LDS women that don’t want to serve a mission the way they typically do for young men.
Actually, that’s not necessarily the case. Due to the change, there was an article in the BYU paper about it, stating that the trend had already taken hold that if boys don’t serve by 18, there was something wrong with them (worthiness) and if girls don’t serve at 19, they were beginning to be seen as unmarriagable just like non-RM boys were. The article was trying to restore the idea that for girls it is optional, and yet, the culture was pushing that there’s no “excuse” not to go at 19 since that’s too young to get married anyway.
I have seen this already also. Good luck on changing that perception. With church culture the way it is, I expect it to be all but inevitable.Sad, but true.
As cwald likes to say, it is ironic that so many traditional, orthodox members don’t listen to their prophets when they don’t like what is said or don’t want to accept it. We all are cafeteria Mormons in the end.
Old-Timer wrote:We all are cafeteria Mormons in the end.
But sometimes I still have a hard time understanding why they even bother putting out the brussels sprouts.
:sick: :angel: LookingHard wrote:hawkgrrrl wrote:Quote:whereas no one will second-guess LDS women that don’t want to serve a mission the way they typically do for young men.
Actually, that’s not necessarily the case. Due to the change, t
here was an article in the BYU paper about it, stating that the trend had already taken hold that if boys don’t serve by 18, there was something wrong with them (worthiness) and if girls don’t serve at 19, they were beginning to be seen as unmarriagable just like non-RM boys were. The article was trying to restore the idea that for girls it is optional, and yet, the culture was pushing that there’s no “excuse” not to go at 19 since that’s too young to get married anyway.
I have seen this already also. Good luck on changing that perception. With church culture the way it is, I expect it to be all but inevitable.Maybe there are people saying things like, “Why don’t you go on a mission now that you are over 19?” after the age change but I still don’t believe that there is anywhere near the pressure on LDS women to serve missions as there currently is on young men because I suspect that if they simply said they don’t want to or ignored this then that would typically be the end of it for practical purposes whereas for many young men that wouldn’t be the end of it at all because it is absolutely an overbearing expectation for young men and if they don’t go then they are seen as a disappointment by many in the Church long afterwards if not indefinitely. A more similar analogy to the level of pressure and the way active members typically react when young men don’t serve a mission would be if an LDS woman gets married outside the temple (I.E. let the gossip and harsh judgments begin).
The fact that this article has specifically tried to reiterate that missions are supposed to be optional for women and some Church leaders have already said so as well shows that the expectations have traditionally been very different for men and women and I think it would take a lot more than this age change for similar expectations for women to really catch on in the culture in a widespread way. To be honest I think the Church should try to move away from depending so much on having members follow the recommended life script of missions and/or temple marriage, and “enduring to the end” and try to appeal better to more members/investigators that don’t fit this profile because I don’t think they can afford to lose as many members as they could easily get away with in the past and now we are starting to see a significant number of members that already did serve a mission and get married in the temple lose faith in the Church anyway largely thanks to the internet.
If anything they should raise the age for missions. Of course that would drastically cut the number of missionaries, which would be a good thing. Better to have a few intelligent ones that want to be there than a bunch of kids without a clue. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Cadence wrote:If anything they should raise the age for missions. Of course that would drastically cut the number of missionaries, which would be a good thing. Better to have a few intelligent ones that want to be there than a bunch of kids without a clue.
I agree with this… not so much as a matter of theology or whatever, but because of street smarts. A lot of Mormon kids are sheltered, and it pays to have some life experience in avoiding trouble.
My son and I were discussing the impact the lower age (especially for sisters) might have on marriage. Some sisters only went at 21 because they weren’t married then. Now it would appear many of those same sisters do have the opportunity to serve, and judging by the significant increase in the number of sisters serving are doing so. So sisters who were previously marrying at 19, 20 or 21 now may be delaying until 22 or 23. I don’t think that’s a bad thing, mind you (I’m not a fan of young marriage), but it will likely change the current dynamic. The deep irony of this topic is that equalizing the age of service was a HUGE issue for feminist and liberal members prior to it happening – and pretty much everyone understood that raising the age for young men was not going to happen. This discussion points to one thing clearly:
It is easy to arm-chair quarterback, but it is much harder to have to make the actual decisions that are going to be criticized no matter what – often by the same people.
Complaining about the effects of changes we demanded is not a good way to live our lives.
I’m not complaining at all, I’m just observing some cultural changes that will likely occur as a result of the age change and observing that there is a perceived change in maturity level with younger male missionaries. The latter caught me by surprise, actually – I wouldn’t have guessed there isn’t that much difference between and 18-year-old and a 19-year-old. On the other hand, I only have subjective ideas to substantiate my view and no actual “proof” elders are in actuality less mature. Were I to complain about something it would be that the ages were not actually equalized – either leaving it at 19 for both or also changing women to 18. As far as the age is concerned – I didn’t grow up with the expectation that I would serve a mission, I didn’t even get any social pressure to serve. Some people do get that pressure to serve. IMO if the expectation is there it’s best to go ahead and get it out of the way so you can move on to the next chapter of your life as soon as possible. Pushing the age back delays college, possibly marriage (given that the culture marries young), it can even delay enjoying youth (say you’re a rock climber – you’ve got a finite number of years where your body will let you do those things). I didn’t mean to point my comment toward anyone here. It simply was an observation about the issue of the post title and the reactions of some of the more vocal people I know. Sorry that wasn’t clear.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.