- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I’m very pleased with how many sister missionaries continue to serve missions. It’s long overdue to have made it more accessible to them. The best missionary I ever knew was a sister, and it wasn’t even close. One thing I think is pretty cool right now is that I think it’s actually a better situation for sister missionaries than for elders. My hope is that the positive vibe for sister missionaries right now will contribute to more and more girls wanting to and planning to go.
Here are some of my observations about this:
– Because women serve for 18 months, the cycle time is compressed. The sister missionaries make it to ‘senior’ and ‘trainer’ faster than their male counterparts (on average, of course).
– IMO, the relatively new position of Sister Training Leader is the sweetest gig in the mission. Divide all the responsibilities of a zone leader into two bins: fun and no fun. Take all the fun items, make a position of out it. Label it STL. STLs travel more than any other missionaries not working in the office… and they don’t have to be office workers to get that perk. From what I’ve seen, the norm is for STLs to span two zones and they travel extensively within those zones. Conversely elders are supposed to stay within the boundaries of their zone.
– There is tremendous disparity in the attire expectations between the elders and sisters. Since 2010, there have been a couple of rounds of changes to modernize and brighten attire for the gals. The guys have seen changes, too, but not to the same extent. Take the name tag off a sister missionary and she’ll look like a normal person that you might find at a party, the mall, the office. But take the name tag off an elder and he looks, well, like a returned missionary on his way to Church. In an ABC Nightline piece and corresponding article back in January, a sister missionary said that, “Just recently they told us to be colorful and look cute.”
– There is a different level of acceptance for sister missionaries. The same ABC piece: “People are definitely more open to a female missionary. Part of it may be what we wear.” IMO, elder attire is a bit intimidating and threatening. Sister attire is more friendly. The difference in perception is huge when dealing with random members of the public. I also think that the age and gender are major factors in acceptance. Since girls mature physically at a younger age, and yet are older when they go on missions, a 19-year-old woman is going to look closer to adulthood, while an 18-year-old elder often seems much more adolescent. I remember talking to an elder serving in our ward and I asked him how often he got “the finger”. He laughed. “Every day,” he said with a smile, “but it helps me remember why I’m out here.” A while later, the elders were switched out for sisters in our ward. Probably about a year after having that conversation with the elder, I brought it up with a sister missionary. She seemed perplexed. Getting flipped off was rare for her. I’m not saying that sisters in other places don’t also receive poor treatment, but it was interesting that in the same ward in approximately the same time frame, the elder’s experience was quite different from the sister’s.
– It has always been the case that the group of sisters in a mission make up a smaller and closer-knit community. However, prior to the creation of the STL position, sisters were more isolated. I can’t think of a single time that I can recall sister missionaries going on ‘splits’, for example. But nowadays, these sister missionaries have a lot more interaction with each other and have a platform for forming great relationships.
I would love it if the Church Mission Department would take note of the successes the sister missionaries are experiencing, and try to apply some of those same lessons-learned to all the missionaries.
Given the current structure and restrictions of a mission I would not like either my son or daughter to have to experience that. If some things were change overall I think it could be a healthy and rewarding experience. One of the things my soon-to-finish his mission has said a few times is that he wishes the church would recognize that Paul was effective partly because he lived like those he taught. That would include dressing like those around them. I agree. I’m not saying they should go around in grungy jeans or what-not, but more casual dress would probably attract more of the types of people the church wants – young men and young families. I’d much rather talk to a guy in jeans and a polo shirt than somebody who looks like he’s dressed for a business meeting. DarkJedi wrote:One of the things my soon-to-finish his mission has said a few times is that he wishes the church would recognize that Paul was effective partly because he lived like those he taught. That would include dressing like those around them. I agree. I’m not saying they should go around in grungy jeans or what-not, but more casual dress would probably attract more of the types of people the church wants – young men and young families. I’d much rather talk to a guy in jeans and a polo shirt than somebody who looks like he’s dressed for a business meeting.
in my mission, we were not to leave the apartment without permission unless we had a white shirt and tie on, even for doing laundry. It made the pressure difficult to manage because we were targets for ridicule everywhere we went, and were never allowed to unwind. I think the “uniform” can get old after a while. I know that in some situations, it would have been easier for us to relate to people–like playing a game of ball with them in something OTHER than a white shirt and tie, if we would have been allowed to dress down and more comfortable.
On Own Now wrote:– IMO, the relatively new position of Sister Training Leader is the sweetest gig in the mission. Divide all the responsibilities of a zone leader into two bins: fun and no fun. Take all the fun items, make a position of out it. Label it STL. STLs travel more than any other missionaries not working in the office… and they don’t have to be office workers to get that perk. From what I’ve seen, the norm is for STLs to span two zones and they travel extensively within those zones. Conversely elders are supposed to stay within the boundaries of their zone.
I’m guessing that traveling sisters was an idea meant to address getting sister missionaries into more branches and wards that haven’t had sister missionaries in a very long time. Our ward was excited when we finally got sister missionaries. Many of the women expressed excitement at the opportunity of going out on exchanges with the sister missionaries, something that they hadn’t had the opportunity to do in decades. And of course it turned into one of those “why can’t the men be this excited to go on exchanges with the elders?” moments. To which I’d respond, “please, take the elders away for a few decades, then we’ll see if we’re as excited when they come back.”
We had traveling training missionaries on our mission. I don’t know how fun it was to be one but I know every missionary hated it when their number came up to host them. Of course it’s all in the execution. Ours were enforcers/inspectors… like when the RSP shows up to someone’s home, snoops around their kitchen cupboards and white gloves all their banisters. When they showed up you knew you were going to be in trouble somehow.
On Own Now wrote:– There is tremendous disparity in the attire expectations between the elders and sisters. Since 2010, there have been a couple of rounds of changes to modernize and brighten attire for the gals. The guys have seen changes, too, but not to the same extent. Take the name tag off a sister missionary and she’ll look like a normal person that you might find at a party, the mall, the office. But take the name tag off an elder and he looks, well, like a returned missionary on his way to Church. In an ABC Nightline piece and corresponding article back in January, a sister missionary said that, “Just recently they told us to be colorful and look cute.”
– There is a different level of acceptance for sister missionaries. The same ABC piece: “People are definitely more open to a female missionary. Part of it may be what we wear.” IMO, elder attire is a bit intimidating and threatening. Sister attire is more friendly. The difference in perception is huge when dealing with random members of the public. I also think that the age and gender are major factors in acceptance. Since girls mature physically at a younger age, and yet are older when they go on missions, a 19-year-old woman is going to look closer to adulthood, while an 18-year-old elder often seems much more adolescent. I remember talking to an elder serving in our ward and I asked him how often he got “the finger”. He laughed. “Every day,” he said with a smile, “but it helps me remember why I’m out here.” A while later, the elders were switched out for sisters in our ward. Probably about a year after having that conversation with the elder, I brought it up with a sister missionary. She seemed perplexed. Getting flipped off was rare for her. I’m not saying that sisters in other places don’t also receive poor treatment, but it was interesting that in the same ward in approximately the same time frame, the elder’s experience was quite different from the sister’s.
I think these two go hand in hand. People can spot an elder from two blocks away. Most people in heavily tracted countries recognize the elders at a distance and they are free to project their preconceived notions of Mormonism at them from a distance. Plus we have the added baggage of going door to door annoying people. To the world the symbolism of the elder attire is ”
🙄 it’s those annoying people trying to convert me.” There’s no easy answer for the elders.1) The uniform sets them apart from the world. I think the
desireis to have them easily recognized. Heck, I remember when I took the discussions. I recognized the elders when I was driving down the road and I stopped them to ask a few questions. Wouldn’t have happened without that stuffy uniform. 2) If we changed the attire to something else people would just shift the old associations to the new attire. I believe changing what missionaries do would give us more mileage in overcoming the negative connotations. The narrative would switch from “here come those annoying guys that only care about getting me to join their religion” to “here come those guys that help people with yard work, painting, washing cars, etc.” It would probably take a very long time of switching to the service model before perceptions change. Perhaps that’s an answer though, in heavily tracted countries where there’s a very low baptisms per missionary ratio (this is a tracked statistic), what do you have to lose in flipping the paradigm from mostly proselyting with some service to mostly service with some proselyting?
3) The uniform insulates the missionary from the world. It’s harder to get into any “trouble” (real trouble or visiting Target on a day that isn’t p-day in the Morcor trouble) if all eyes are on you at all times.
4) The uniform can protect. I served in poor areas and while I was robbed about a half dozen times people knew who we were and most people knew that we didn’t have anything to steal.
On Own Now wrote:– It has always been the case that the group of sisters in a mission make up a smaller and closer-knit community. However, prior to the creation of the STL position, sisters were more isolated. I can’t think of a single time that I can recall sister missionaries going on ‘splits’, for example. But nowadays, these sister missionaries have a lot more interaction with each other and have a platform for forming great relationships.
I think that’s a function of numbers. Now that there are more women serving missions there’s more opportunity.
Cadence wrote:Given the current structure and restrictions of a mission I would not like either my son or daughter to have to experience that. If some things were change overall I think it could be a healthy and rewarding experience.
My children are having very rewarding experiences.
churchistrue wrote:Cadence wrote:Given the current structure and restrictions of a mission I would not like either my son or daughter to have to experience that. If some things were change overall I think it could be a healthy and rewarding experience.
My children are having very rewarding experiences.
I would say the same for mine. I strongly dislike the cult aspects of the mission experience and were I king I would make some significant changes. Nevertheless, for them missions seem to be a net positive experience and I am happy for them. From more own point of view, my mission is more negative in retrospect (and in view of my new faith) than it was when and immediately after I did it.
My kids also have had great missions. For those that it works for it can be great. I worry for those that either can’t make it or have a really bad time they are labeled as less than Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
churchistrue wrote:Cadence wrote:Given the current structure and restrictions of a mission I would not like either my son or daughter to have to experience that. If some things were change overall I think it could be a healthy and rewarding experience.
My children are having very rewarding experiences.
Like many aspects of the church for everyone it works for there is one that it is very difficult and even damaging. We just need to ask ourselves if we are willing to perpetuate the system as it is, to benefit some at the expense of others.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
On Own Now wrote:I would love it if the Church Mission Department would take note of the successes the sister missionaries are experiencing, and try to apply some of those same lessons-learned to all the missionaries.
I’d agree…and think the church would be wise to setup the best missionaries as trainers and leaders, regardless of being Elder or Sister. If the STL position is to only visit and teach other sisters…they are missing out on a huge resource opportunity. If they get hung up on DL and ZL needing priesthood to lead, therefore sisters are separated out, they are missing the boat. Elders should be being taught and held accountable by sisters who take their volunteer service seriously…and do it with love.Having said that…I’ve recently spent time with some sister missionaries that were very very immature, from my observations. Not all sisters are more mature than all elders…but…I think the less the missions follow a priesthood order and instead follow talent and work habits…they would be better off by far.
Twenty years ago my mission president flat out told one of the sister missionaries she was the best missionary in his mission and would make her an AP if he were allowed. Instead the “highest” she got was to be a trainer for virtually her entire mission. We would have been a better mission with more baptisms if she were allowed to be AP and train all missionaries – that’s the irony. On average I’d give the advantage to sisters – I think it’s largely due to their slightly higher age and more life experience.
Roadrunner wrote:On average I’d give the advantage to sisters – I think it’s largely due to their slightly higher age and more life experience.
Along with this, because missionaries have historically been more optional for young women – I believe the female missionaries generally have more compelling personal reason to be there.
I don’t know that sister missionaries are better than elders. I think both groups have really great people who dedicate everything, are charming, hard-working, successful, great leaders, and great teachers. Among the missionaries I worked with most closely, which is probably a relatively small sample size, maybe 30 people, the best of the group was a sister. But I’d say the remainder of the top five were elders. Over the years since coming home, when I’ve gotten to know the missionaries well, I think there have been great, good, fair, and poor missionaries from either side of the (temple) aisle. My point in saying that the advantage goes to the sisters wasn’t meant in that way, but in the sense that I think they have a more favorable mission environmnet and experience, compared to their male counterparts.
Roy wrote:Roadrunner wrote:On average I’d give the advantage to sisters – I think it’s largely due to their slightly higher age and more life experience.
Along with this, because missionaries have historically been more optional for young women – I believe the female missionaries generally have more compelling personal reason to be there.
My experience (back 20+ years ago) was that the male missionaries ran the range from “on a mission for the wrong reasons” to “GA bound” and all varieties in between. For sisters it seemed to be either they were really good and really wanted to be there, or they just couldn’t figure out what else they should be doing so they went on a mission and were problematic. Very little in between – no middle ground.I have seen this change with the age change and I have in our ward seen a bit more “variety” between the extremes, and even a few cases where some of the sisters were less mature than some of the elders. No big problems, but just seeing what they do and saying, “you didn’t realize what that action would do?” I am sure that MP’s have less issues with sisters than with elders when it comes to the “OMG – what were they thinking when they decided to do that?” Elder still reign in doing truly stupid things.
DarkJedi wrote:One of the things my soon-to-finish his mission has said a few times is that he wishes the church would recognize that Paul was effective partly because he lived like those he taught. That would include dressing like those around them. I agree. I’m not saying they should go around in grungy jeans or what-not, but more casual dress would probably attract more of the types of people the church wants – young men and young families. I’d much rather talk to a guy in jeans and a polo shirt than somebody who looks like he’s dressed for a business meeting.
IMO, just relaxing it to a solid color and/or pinstripe dress shirt (specify subdued colors if you’re really worried about them finding hot pink with diagonal chartreuse pinstripes) would do wonders for investigators’ comfort level when dealing with elders. Take the jacket and nametag off, and they look just like any young professional in an informal meeting.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.