- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I turned on conference expecting to hear the same general ideas we have been hearing for at least the past 20 years. Instead Thomas S. Monson announced that they were changing the age limits for full-time missionaries to 18 for men (plus the equivalent of high school graduation) and 19 for women. This could be the single most significant change in policy the Church has made since 1978. I’m not sure that it is a positive change overall but I would be interested to know the thought process behind it. Since I love to speculate my guess is that the general idea was that they wanted to get as many young adults on missions as possible and the fear is that the longer they wait to go on missions the higher the chances are that many of them will get involved in pre-marital sex, drinking, smoking, and/or liking porn too much to give up and never serve a mission or get married in the temple as a direct result. Basically it bridges the gap to some extent between being monitored and kept in line by your parents to some extent and being monitored and kept in line by your mission president and mission companions. DevilsAdvocate wrote:my guess is that the general idea was that they wanted to get as many young adults on missions as possible and the fear is that the longer they wait to go on missions the higher the chances are that many of them will get involved in pre-marital sex, drinking, smoking, and/or liking porn too much to give up and never serve a mission or get married in the temple as a direct result. Basically it bridges the gap to some extent between being monitored and kept in line by your parents to some extent and being monitored and kept in line by your mission president and mission companions.
I hate to say it, but I completely agree. Kids who go off to college often go “off the deep end” during their first year. Handing the young men off directly from high school graduation to the mission field will keep structure and supervision in their lives. I can’t help but think this policy change was directly influenced by the fear and reality of losing these young men when they leave home. It has often been suggested that missions are more effective at indoctrinating and training members for lifelong activity in the church than they are at bringing converts into the church.
As a college professor, I also can’t help but wonder how this will affect higher education policy in mormon communities…
It also just occurred to me that about two years from now, were going to see a lot of men marrying at the age of 20… uhh….
Speculation on reasons be damned; my daughters are happy. My oldest daughter who is in college right now just called me. She gave me permission to share the following:
She has been feeling strongly lately that she needs to prepare to serve a mission. In the temple this week (to do baptisms for the dead), she got an overwhelming impression that she should go on a mission “immediately”. She is barely 20, so she assumed that meant next summer when she turns 21.
She was in tears today when she told me she has contacted her Bishop and asked to start the process of leaving “immediately”.
All my daughters are happy right now. That’s all that matters in this moment.
I think this is positive and awesome. Allowing 18 years old to serve missions in some countries proved to be good, so it was made a general policy. What’s the point of making a young man wait until he is 19 when he is ready to go sooner? I did nothing but work a lame job for looooong months after high school and I wish I had been able to go sooner. Some will choose to go sooner and others won’t. Plenty of RMs get married at an age older than 21, so I don’t think too many getting married at 20 will be a real concern.
I don’t think forming conspiracy theories will help anything.
My daughter is at BYU-Idaho but went to SLC to watch conference and texted me as soon as she got out of the session. She is 19 and said she wants to go and will start the process. I hope they keep encouraging youth to go, and YW leaders and bishops back off telling girls their job is to get married.
I’m in favor of the change, although I’m not sure it means significant change to the work.
Does anyone know if it is 18 months or 24 months for girls?
They apparently held a press conference after the session ( http://www.ksl.com/?sid=22445486&nid=295&title=lds-church-announces-historic-changes-to-missionary-age-requirements&s_cid=featured-1 ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://www.ksl.com/?sid=22445486&nid=295&title=lds-church-announces-historic-changes-to-missionary-age-requirements&s_cid=featured-1 As for the women, the terms of their missions were left at 18 months. Elder Holland apparently was asked why and responded “Only one miracle at a time!”
So, gender differences for missions have been modified in a fairly significant way, but in some ways are pretty much the same (just when you can go being different). Will be interesting to see how this affects things.
turinturambar wrote:
It also just occurred to me that about two years from now, were going to see a lot of men marrying at the age of 20… uhh….I got married at 20. It works for some … but then again I didn’t serve a mission.
When I went to the temple the first time the temple president was asking the other 6 guys going through for the first time where they were called to serve. When he reached me he asked “and you elder, where are you called to serve?” I responded, “I’m not going on a mission, I’m getting an eternal companion and won’t have to pray for transfer day.”
😈 He shook my hand and laughed. Later he was the one who performed the sealing.Anyway, I am very happy about the change for sisters. While still not complete gender equality it is at least closer.
Just to provide the complementary example to my daughter’s experience: I also texted my second son (22 years old) after the policy announcement and told him I hope he doesn’t question his personal revelation to not serve a full-time mission, what with the policy change and all. Part of the wording now is “worthy
andABLE” – and his personal situation makes him unable to serve a full-time mission and remain true to his responsibility to his fiance. As he was pondering and praying about it, he was out with the missionaries one evening and realized he could be involved in teaching the Gospel very actively whether or not he served a full-time mission – and it hit him later that night as he was reading his Patriarchal Blessing again that it never says he will serve a mission. Instead, it says he would preach and share the Gospel “in the spirit of missionary work”.
Each person is different, and each person has to make the decisions that are right for him or her. Nobody can make those decisions for them, not even their parents or their church leaders.
Old-Timer wrote:Speculation on reasons be damned; my daughters are happy.
My oldest daughter who is in college right now just called me. She gave me permission to share the following:
She has been feeling strongly lately that she needs to prepare to serve a mission. In the temple this week (to do baptisms for the dead), she got an overwhelming impression that she should go on a mission “immediately”. She is barely 20, so she assumed that meant next summer when she turns 21.
She was in tears today when she told me she has contacted her Bishop and asked to start the process of leaving “immediately”.
All my daughters are happy right now. That’s all that matters in this moment.
Great story Ray….. This policy change is not close to my heart. It doesn’t greatly affect my emotion or concern personally, yet when I heard the change I was touched by the spirit to know that spiritually it was the Lord’s decision. I know that might be taken with a skeptical eye by some but thought I would share
When I was 19 at BYU, I did not realize Women could not go until 21. I was already to go at 19 in 1965. Wish they had done it earlier then but maybe I was not mature enough then. I think it is a good thing. Missions for sisters in Europe were 2 years then which was way to long for me. I was more niave at 19 and might have had a stronger testimony then. Really started questioning the gospel on my mission in Austria where it was difficult. bridget_night wrote:When I was 19 at BYU, I did not realize Women could not go until 21. I was already to go at 19 in 1965. Wish they had done it earlier then but maybe I was not mature enough then. I think it is a good thing. Missions for sisters in Europe were 2 years then which was way to long for me. I was more niave at 19 and might have had a stronger testimony then. Really started questioning the gospel on my mission in Austria where it was difficult.
Just pondering – missionaries NOW are more mature at 18 or 19 than they would be at 19 or 21 back then? I wouldn’t think so. In fact, I don’t think “maturity” is what the Church is after in this change. If it were (and it has been said in the past), then the Church would send adult men and women on missions as was done in the early days of the Church (apostles to British Isles, to Indians, etc.). So if it is not maturity that is being looked for in this age, what trait(s)
arethey specifically looking for? “Send them before they are corrupted by the world?” I wonder ? . . . :think: Wouldn’t the ability to “relate” be a quality one would want in a missionary – such as in life experience, meeting and overcoming challenges, ability to empathize with people who have followed other paths, etc.? I have always felt that more mature sister missionaries at age 21 have been more effective for that very reason. Now, all of them will be about the same age with the same level of life experience. Great for “bearing testimony by the book,” but maybe not so good for understanding issues of the heart and the Spirit? I don’t know how to call this one (just for my own perspective. Not for anyone else).
I agree with Jana Reiss that it’s progress with an asterisk. Outside the US, 18 is the norm. I don’t think there is much difference between 18 and 19 in maturity. Girls are doubtless more mature even still. I see several positive outcomes: – more sisters will serve, providing better balance
– obviously, a lot more missions served overall
– especially for boys, waiting for their mission is kind of a lost time with maybe a year of college, crappy job, and young love
– economy is bad, so there aren’t a lot of jobs for those in this age range anyway
– teaching boys more respect for the sisters and helping them learn how to work together
– starting college a little later may be an advantage in ability to comprehend and do well
– oddly, as a mother, it seems easier to send my son to a mission than to college at 18.
– more marriages will be 2 RMs, which statistically have the lowest divorce rates in the church.
– less focus on marriage for YW, more on mission prep!
On the downside, the Mission Presidents and their wives shared a convulsive shudder at the announcement. I also hope this won’t result in fewer Mormons, either sex, who ultimately don’t get their degrees.
I was pleased with announcement. Whether it helps more youth stay in the church or not, will be determined in the future. i think synchronizing with the end of high school is doubtless a good thing, but it demonstrates, more than ever, that missions are more for the development of missionaries than for effectively spreading the Gospel. i find it curious, even a little wierd, why for girls it is 19… still, by having both girls and boys nearly the same age working together at the rage of hormones and with slightly less maturity should be an interesting phenomenon. as well, by lowering the age, it will be interesting to see if the pressure to get married right after missions still holds. given the rage in hormones and pressures to “remain pure”, marriage age among LDS will naturally reduce somewhat, causing less mature starts to marriage. Or conversely, having a larger single post-mission period may involve sexual choices by more RMs that aren’t in keeping with the LoC.
i think change here is good, but change always comes with ripple effects.
I’m sure at age 18 you will have some young men chicken out. Mostly though I have to agree with the age change. I wish it would have been that way for me. I hated screwing up the second semester of my first year in college anticipating the mission. The anxiety was really high for me. I always thought that saying of serving the Lord first didn’t make sense since you had to serve yourself for a year-before you could even serve the Lord. The big thing I think this is able to curb are the 18-19 year olds who get serious with a dating partner. These are the guys and girls that are in the MTC and then quit the mission to go home and get married. I have seen it happen to personal acquaintences at least 5 times. It is wisdom to get these young people out on the missions before they are distracted by other things. Sure for the young men the hormones will be raging, but that is why they gave the horse pill viatamins to put a damper on the hormones (at least that was the theory).
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.