- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I think this will increase the average marriage age – and do so quite dramatically. I say that for two reasons: 1) The average marriage age for women in the Church almost has to go up, since I think so many young women who would have married at 19 or 20 will serve missions and not marry prior to turning 21.
2) In reality, relatively few young men in the USA actually will serve at age 18 – and those who do generally will be only a few months short of turning 19. Even if they were to return home and marry in the same pattern as exists now, that would push their average marriage age up only a few months – but I think the lower pool of eligible younger women (the 18-21 year old pool who are not serving missions) will cause many of those young men to be marrying young women who are their own age and, in many cases, also RM’s.
That is a good thing in the aggregate, I believe.
Old-Timer wrote:That is a good thing in the aggregate, I believe.
I agree. The mission experience is becoming just a little more flexible. Now the range of when a single man can serve is 7 years and the single ladies range is +2 years. I’m sure there will be other effects and perhaps the one most hoped for by Q15 leaders is for more missionaries.
I also took note that part of the rationale for this change was normalizing the US vs. international policies determining at what age a person can serve. I can’t help but wonder if this couldn’t be a precedent for changing the year waiting policy for couples that get married outside the temple but then want to be sealed. I also wonder with this and the official announcement that caffeine does not violate the WoW, if this may be the beginning of an activist period for the church leadership (where policies that have little practical justification beyond just tradition are open to revision). Is this a manifestation of the “Mormon” moment? Am I just getting carried away? Who knows – but I am excited by the possibilities.
hawkgrrrl wrote:– more marriages will be 2 RMs, which statistically have the lowest divorce rates in the church.
This sounds reasonable and logical and affirmed by my personal experience – Yet I would also really like some hard statistical data on the subject. Do you have a source? Thanks!
This is a pretty big deal for my family, since in the next 4 years, I could have 2 kids serving, where as before it was going to be 4 years before either of my daughters could go. It put the idea of them going on a mission from something rattling around in the back of my mind and pushed it up to the front. Roy all the “real” stats on this are suspect, IMO, although my anecdotal evidence would confirm that 2 RM marriages have a lower divorce rate. The reason the data is suspect is because outside the church, they don’t track which marriages are dual RM, and within the church, they don’t track the real divorce rate. If you are sealed, the sealing is only cancelled when a spouse remarries, so it’s not totally accurate either. So, I’d love to say it’s a certain thing – it’s not – it’s just my personal belief based on the people I know. This will obviously add a bunch of missionaries right now and really load the ranks next summer. I’ve thought for a long time that a big part of missionary service is converting and retaining the missionary and his future family, as much as converting new members. This will obviously reduce that dangerous period of transition where boys often leave home for college and have to live on their own governing themselves. As a parent, however, I would prefer my son to spend a year “kind of away” from the nest at college where his parents could still maintain regular contact and visits if needed, prior to really being fully away on a mission. After a mission, life seems to go on a different track. I know I would not have wanted to serve at 18, nor was I ready at 18. I matured significantly in that first year of college and was ready to go when I did. But, everyone is different. I don’t know that there is ANY real data regarding the marriage statistics of RM’s versus dual RM’s. LDS couples in the USA married in the temple are only slightly less likely to divorce than the general population, and about the same as those of other faiths (such as a jewish couple, catholic, other christians etc). Often, however, you’ll hear reports that temple marriages are FAR less likely to divorce, but that is based on skewed data from a BYU study that only counted temple sealing retractions as a “divorce” and did not consider regular divorces that did not include a “temple divorce”. As Hawkgrrrl mentioned, the data is suspect.
If you’re really interested I can probably find the data sources. I don’t have them handy anymore, so I’m going on memory, which may also be suspect.
I don’t know that lowering the mission age would have much of an effect on LDS divorce rates. I would expect they would continue to move with the general population. I also don’t agree that this policy in and of itself would result in an INCREASE in age of marriage. It would be difficult to isolate this variable… the age of marriage has been moving up for some time anyway, so I would expect that to continue to climb. If you look at average age of LDS marriage in five years I suspect it will be higher than it is now, but the reason will not be this new policy. The age is just climbing anyway.
I’m not really excited about the 18 year mark… I think it’s too young… especially in this age when YM seem more interested in leisure pursuits than in establishing themselves as independent men. However, I’m very happy about the long-overdue change in the missionary age of young women. And I do believe, like Ray, that this will have a substantial, immediate, and sustained effect in the marrying age of LDS kids. Two reasons:
– Obviously, YW are now going to go on missions in much higher numbers… we’ll have 2, 3, 4 times as many YW serving in a few years than we do right now, I’m certain. That by itself will take many of these YW that are currently getting married at 19 or 20 out of the mix. That’s the obvious one.
– More importantly, and with long-term effects will be the change in focus in YW organizations for teenage girls in the church. Something that has always bothered me is that YW have up until now been told 1) graduate from high school 2) start college 3) get married in the temple 4) have a family 5) consider finishing your college education in case something happens to your husband. Missions have largely been a topic left for the other side of a distant horizon, in case Plan A doesn’t work out, but there has been very little preparation for being a missionary in YW organizations (sure, there are individual leaders and wards that have taken this more seriously, I’m talking The Norm). Now, I believe the girls will want missionary prep lessons and activities. I believe the default stance can no longer be the old formula. Many girls in their middle teens will simply plan to be missionaries. I believe that for a large segment of the population of the YW, this will remove the urgency of getting married.
I’ve listened to a few people talk about this and have been astonished at the reactions… Especially reading people’s reactions on KSL. To me this is an administrative task… Not a revelation. It’s like saying we will have lunch at 11am instead of at noon. Lines will be shorter, we can spend more time dining, travel time will be less because of less traffic… Etc etc. While I understand that this change can have an impact on people’s lives, I don’t see how this can be seen as much more than administrative housekeeping by the church. To have much more reaction than that seems bizarre to me. Anyone else?
I’m curious will the admissions policies change a BYU & other LDS schools? For example, will they be more selective & use successful completion of a mission be a criteria for admissions?
If a member who does not choose to go on a mission be at a disadvantage?
Always curious,
Mike from Milton.
Mike wrote:I’m curious will the admissions policies change a BYU & other LDS schools?
For example, will they be more selective & use successful completion of a mission be a criteria for admissions?
If a member who does not choose to go on a mission be at a disadvantage?
Good questions, Mike. I wondered the same thing. They have stressed seminary attendance as a factor to attending church schools…now will they emphasize that if they have to choose between a student who completed seminary and a mission, and someone that completed seminary but not a mission…is there preference? It seems logical. And yet, as Ray pointed out…some circumstances aren’t right for people to serve a full time mission. So I would hope it wouldn’t be problematic, but the impact on admissions will be interesting, especially for the next few years when the age adjustment will be most evident.Anyway, its been a fun weekend of jokes in our house…
Quote:Did you hear, they are now letting 11 year old scouts to be ordained deacons to be part of the quorums?
Quote:Well…I heard Beehives are now allowed to go to stake dances!
Quote:They’ve lowered the age of Senior primary so it now includes 7 year old CTR classes!
and of course…
Quote:Couples are now allowed to serve missions together at age 19!
😯 blackout wrote:While I understand that this change can have an impact on people’s lives, I don’t see how this can be seen as much more than administrative housekeeping by the church. To have much more reaction than that seems bizarre to me. Anyone else?
Well, it wasn’t presented as a revelation. I’m not going to fault anyone for getting excited that God is still involved in the affairs of the Church. That’s their faith, and if they see it that way, good for them. Like you, I see it as an administrative change. However, it’s a big one. The Church doesn’t make changes like this very often, so it’s novel. In the last 25 years, the Church has tweaked the Quorums of the Seventy several times. Those changes are interesting, but have little to no impact on individual members of the Church at large. But this change affects anyone that is a teenager, anyone that has teenaged children, and anyone that teaches teenagers. So, the buzz is for obvious reasons.
To me, the biggest change is that it’s a step in the right direction in terms of male/female roles in the church. Is it overdue? Yes… Is it complete? No. But it is a big and rare step in that direction, so it is good news.
Administrative change or not, it is a big deal to many.
blackout wrote:I’ve listened to a few people talk about this and have been astonished at the reactions… Especially reading people’s reactions on KSL. To me this is an administrative task… Not a revelation. It’s like saying we will have lunch at 11am instead of at noon. Lines will be shorter, we can spend more time dining, travel time will be less because of less traffic… Etc etc.
While I understand that this change can have an impact on people’s lives, I don’t see how this can be seen as much more than administrative housekeeping by the church. To have much more reaction than that seems bizarre to me. Anyone else?
I can’t speak to what people are specifically saying on other places, but I do believe that administrative changes are the new MO for the church. The presiding patriarch position was quietly discontinued. Caffeine is officially not against the WOW by press release. New light shed on the priesthood ban by press release. The Perpetual Education Fund announced. Smaller temples announced. Only one pair of earrings for girls (Perhaps the earring thing doesn’t belong as an administrative change but it was so BIG when I was a YSA that it might have well been.). New CHI with relevant changes. New SSA pamphlets and church stance that acknowledge a lack of choice in sexual orientation for many people. Changes to temple endowment and then years later to the initiatory (possibly the result of surveys and focus groups). And now change in mission service age.
Even the manifesto and the rescinding of the priesthood ban could be seen as administrative changes from the perspective that the church was facing significant pressure from outside to make the changes. The manifesto even more so because polygamy continued in a more secret fashion and was known and “winked at” by church leadership for an additional 15 years.
Are we to take the position that the degree of direct involvement by God in the decision making process is in direct proportion to the size of the change? All these things are seen as inspired to a greater or lesser extent. Is it revelation? That depends on how you define revelation. The council system of receiving revelation was established and supported by JS himself. Where does human stewardship stop and divine prompting begin? Good question. The answer depends on your perspective.
It also means that young people will be going through the temple much younger. This is a really big deal to me, to be making the lifelong commitments you make in the temple at such a young age. Even is someone is ready for a mission, I wonder if they are ready for that. wayfarer wrote:…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…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… Actually, I would be more surprised if they didn’t maintain the one year difference between men and women as well as the difference in mission length (18 months for women). Church leaders have repeatedly made it clear that they generally see women’s primary role in life being to get married and have children. With the current change, women are still indirectly encouraged to consider marriage first for a while but then if they are not already married or engaged by the time they are 19 and want to go on a mission now they can start and complete their mission much sooner than before. In fact, if Church members typically follow this schedule without delays the recently returned missionaries will all be about the same age now because of the extra six months and any time to finish high school for the men.
Old-Timer wrote:Speculation on reasons be damned; my daughters are happy…That’s all that matters in this moment.
Nephite wrote: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 don’t think forming conspiracy theories will help anything.
wjclerk wrote:They apparently held a press conference after the session…and answered some of the “why” questions. It sounds like a large reason of the 19 to 18 change was to bring into conformity with other countries where young men need to leave at a younger age for military or education reasons.
blackout wrote:I’ve listened to a few people talk about this and have been astonished at the reactions… Especially reading people’s reactions on KSL. To me this is an administrative task… Not a revelation. It’s like saying we will have lunch at 11am instead of at noon…To have much more reaction than that seems bizarre to me. Anyone else?
Sure many Church members and leaders as well as the Utah media will prefer to focus on the idea that there are all these young men and women that can’t wait to serve missions and now they don’t have to wait as long anymore and that this has already worked alright for LDS missionaries in other countries so they went ahead and made it the same way worldwide. However, if the change is such an obvious improvement then why didn’t they already do this decades ago? Why now?
There must be some reason that they were willing to go ahead with this after it had already been the way it was for so long. That’s why I think that whether Church leaders want to openly admit it or not a major factor in this decision was trying to prevent losing so many Church members within their first year away from home. In other words, they are apparently looking for solutions now where they didn’t really see enough of a problem to do anything about it before. That’s what is especially interesting about this change to me.
Quote:There must be some reason that they were willing to go ahead with this after it had already been the way it was for so long.
I heard a long time ago that church leaders were concerned about the number of missionaries because demographically there was a dip in the numbers of young men. I wonder if this wasn’t meant to help compensate.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.