kids on missions spin-off

[RedHeadGal]

So I glanced at the thread on how you encourage or respond to children going on missions. My question is this: do you think viewpoints (as taught on GC or otherwise) on sending out missionaries have changed much over time? I know originally they were adult me, mostly married, etc. But say in the last 80 years? Do you think there is a different expectation for a boy growing up in the church with respect to expected missionary service when he's old enough than there was before?

And is it different for women? What's the story on why boys and "expected" and girls are "free to choose"? Has it changed for girls?

I vaguely recall growing up thinking only ugly girls went on missions because all the good ones were married by 21. (I'm talking about as a young girl there). That view is obviously total nonsense. As I grew into my teenage years, I remember really wanting to and expecting to serve a mission, but although I wasn't married at 21, I ultimately chose not to. And of course, no one cared either way. I guess I count myself lucky as being free from the pressure to choose one way, but if missions are so great, why don't we push young women to push themselves.

I guess this is multiple questions.

[Flystripper]

Why aren't young women encouraged to serve missions in the same way that the church "encourages" young men?

Answer: sexism pure and simple

Probably the answer you were looking for, and I took the bait. You're welcome. You can call me german brown trout.

[beelzebabette]

I ended up not going for reasons completely irrelevant to this conversation. I was about twenty-eight when in a TR interview with a member of the stake presidency who told me he encourages his sons not to consider marrying a woman who didn't go on a mission.

Look how I turned out. Maybe he's onto something.

[RedHeadGal]

Originally Posted by beelzebabette

I ended up not going for reasons completely irrelevant to this conversation. I was about twenty-eight when in a TR interview with a member of the stake presidency who told me he encourages his sons not to consider marrying a woman who didn't go on a mission.

Look how I turned out. Maybe he's onto something.

well, I don't know how you turned out, but it sounds juicy.

And I guess the interviewer makes a good point, but it certainly sets a higher standard for women, since they can take it or leave it with impunity.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by beelzebabette

I ended up not going for reasons completely irrelevant to this conversation. I was about twenty-eight when in a TR interview with a member of the stake presidency who told me he encourages his sons not to consider marrying a woman who didn't go on a mission.

Look how I turned out. Maybe he's onto something.

A pretty reckless and thoughtless comment by your stake presidency member.

Men are encouraged ... nay, commanded ... to go because it's part of a priesthood responsibility to preach the gospel. Women are not under the same commandment because they do not hold the priesthood.

We can open up a fresh discussion on whether gender-based priesthood restrictions are sexist, but the call to serve is just a subsection of that concept.

[RedHeadGal]

Originally Posted by Tex

Men are encouraged ... nay, commanded ... to go because it's part of a priesthood responsibility to preach the gospel. Women are not under the same commandment because they do not hold the priesthood.

We can open up a fresh discussion on whether gender-based priesthood restrictions are sexist, but the call to serve is just a subsection of that concept.

This is your take on the matter? Has that always been so? I guess I was under the impression that in the past the level of "encouragement" wasn't quite so high as it is now. And can't men go on to hold, use, develop, or whetever else with their priesthood regardless of whether they serve a mission?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

Bad assumption.

My wife didnt ever have a desire to serve a mission, so she isn't in the pool of women we are discussing.

Too ugly for a mission, even. Whew.

Originally Posted by RedHeadGal

This is your take on the matter? Has that always been so? I guess I was under the impression that in the past the level of "encouragement" wasn't quite so high as it is now. And can't men go on to hold, use, develop, or whetever else with their priesthood regardless of whether they serve a mission?

I'm sure the emphasis on this aspect of priesthood responsibility has evolved over the years, especially has the process has become more formalized. But yes, more or less that's the foundation of the doctrine.

To your second question, yes, obviously they can.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Tex

Too ugly for a mission, even. Whew.

You can always put lipstick on a pig.

[Goatnapper'96]

Originally Posted by RedHeadGal

This is your take on the matter? Has that always been so? I guess I was under the impression that in the past the level of "encouragement" wasn't quite so high as it is now. And can't men go on to hold, use, develop, or whetever else with their priesthood regardless of whether they serve a mission?

For those called the pressure was the same. The difference is that now all are called to serve. Back in the old days one was only called if and when your name was read at some level of conference.

[beelzebabette]

Originally Posted by Tex

Men are encouraged ... nay, commanded ... to go because it's part of a priesthood responsibility to preach the gospel. Women are not under the same commandment because they do not hold the priesthood.

If we're talking doctrinally, the "option" to serve seems to be in line with the counsel to get an education and be prepared to support a family should a calamity arise, to have a family, and to stay home with that family. There's only so many young adult years.

The clarification that there is no obligation but it's an option if they "very much wish to go" made sense even without the priesthood-obligation bit.