kids on missions spin-off

[Tex]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

Sure it is. Total nonsense. No validity to that at all.

Ugly girls choose to serve missions solely out of a desire to serve. If presented the opportunity to get married to someone they really dug, I am sure these same ugly sisters would pass because they want to go on a mission.

Which is why I assume your wife didn't serve.

[RedHeadGal]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

Sure it is. Total nonsense. No validity to that at all.

Ugly girls choose to serve missions solely out of a desire to serve. If presented the opportunity to get married to someone they really dug, I am sure these same ugly sisters would pass because they want to go on a mission.

the "ugly girls" part has less to do with the nonsense. The nonsense part applies more to the beautiful ones. If there were no beautiful sisters, who would work Temple Square?

[MikeWaters]

Redheadgirl, btw, is too pretty to have served in the mission field.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Tex

Which is why I assume your wife didn't serve.

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.

What about your wife?

[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?

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by RedHeadGal

the "ugly girls" part has less to do with the nonsense. The nonsense part applies more to the beautiful ones. If there were no beautiful sisters, who would work Temple Square?

Let's just say that Temple Square is an Equal Opportunity Employer.

Not everyone can do the English giuded tours. Someone needs to speak the foreign languages.

[RedHeadGal]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Redheadgirl, btw, is too pretty to have served in the mission field.

This is another excellent point. It would have been hard for me to preach the gospel, as most would be too distracted by my beauty to hear my message.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Redheadgirl, btw, is too pretty to have served in the mission field.

redheadgal.

keep your dupes straight, sucka.

Charlie Trotters....lol!

[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.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Redheadgirl, btw, is too pretty to have served in the mission field.

True. I love the big eyes, big lips, and big wavy hair.