Church lowers missionary age for women to 18

[bsjkki]

Church lowers missionary age for women to 18 – Church News

"The First Presidency is pleased to announce that effective immediately, young women who choose to serve a full-time mission may begin their service at age 18 following graduation from high school or its equivalent. “While the Lord asks every worthy, able young man as part of his priesthood responsibility to prepare for and serve a mission, we reiterate that missionary service remains an optional opportunity for young women. We recognize that for those young women who desire to serve a full-time mission, the choice of age to begin service will not be the same for everyone.

“We extend our love to the youth of the Church and commend them for their faithfulness.”

I think more women will go on missions with this. 

[Calm]

Good, this makes more sense to me as women can benefit greatly from missions and often make great missionaries, so we need them even if such service is not seen as an obligation of faithfulness for them like men.  The same reasoning for making it easier to fit a mission into the rest of their life applies, maybe even more so since it is harder for women to continue and finish their studies once they start having children.

And if the stats I am aware of are still valid, having one parent go on a mission increases the likelihood the family stays active and this is increased when both do.  I think divorce stats drop as well, but less sure of that.

Since women are more likely to leave the Church these days, encouraging them to participate in ways that contribute to greater connection with our faith community is a very good idea, imo.

Edited November 21, 2025 by Calm

[marineland]

22 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Church lowers missionary age for women to 18 – Church News

"The First Presidency is pleased to announce that effective immediately, young women who choose to serve a full-time mission may begin their service at age 18 following graduation from high school or its equivalent. “While the Lord asks every worthy, able young man as part of his priesthood responsibility to prepare for and serve a mission, we reiterate that missionary service remains an optional opportunity for young women. We recognize that for those young women who desire to serve a full-time mission, the choice of age to begin service will not be the same for everyone.

“We extend our love to the youth of the Church and commend them for their faithfulness.”

I think more women will go on missions with this. 

It was lowered for women from 21 to 19 back in 2012

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/church-lowers-age-requirement-for-missionary-service

 

[Tacenda]

Maybe this is a dumb question since I'm out of the loop. Is it an 18 month mission or 24 month mission?

I think it's great, and more equal to the young men. 

[bluebell]

Just now, Tacenda said:

Maybe this is a dumb question since I'm out of the loop. Is it an 18 month mission or 24 month mission?

I think it's great, and more equal to the young men. 

Still 18 months AFAIK. 

[MustardSeed]

Good. It never made sense to me. Generally I find 18-year-old girls much more mature than 18-year-old boys so it didn’t make sense except for the theory that they wanted women to have that extra year in case they could get married. Which makes me vomit in my mouth, honestly.

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

except for the theory that they wanted women to have that extra year in case they could get married

I prefer to think of it as helping the woman get her degree before she started popping out babies, but I never heard it taught that way.

It was much more conveyed imo when younger that spiritual teaching was not the natural domain of women, especially since most women I had heard of as a teen were going on service, not teaching missions.  For a time, I was under the impression they could only do service and weren’t allowed to teach, it was so emphasized.

When I hit college, I had roommates and others who I knew were anxious to get out and proselyte, but the wait till 21 often got in the way as it meant they would have to interrupt their studies when they were getting into the more complicated material where it was more useful not to have interruptions between semesters and definitely many unexpectedly got involved romantically, though it didn’t stop all of them.  I was already dealing with my sleep disorder and knew I would never be able to manage the rigid early to bed, early to rise as I couldn’t get to sleep before 1 AM most of the time plus tracking seemed my version of hell, so I never considered it myself.

There was the you don’t want to go on a mission because then it wouldn’t be your husband taking you through the veil the first time! crowd as well.

[bluebell]

I’d heard the age difference was because serving wasn’t a duty for girls like it was for boys. Plus it helped tamp down mission romances.

But as far as I know it’s all just rumors and myth. I don’t think the church has ever explained the age difference (at least not that I ever heard).

The church is secretive about weird stuff sometimes. 

[Buckeye]

Great news. I wish they also increased the length of missions to 24 months for sisters, but every positive step should be applauded.
 

FWIW, I don’t think the limitations placed on sisters service (past or present) stems from a desire to push them to marry at a young age before missions so much as a belief among church leaders (misguided in my view) that brothers should take the lead and make up the majority of missionaries in the field. 

Edited November 21, 2025 by Buckeye

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Great news. I wish they also increased the length of missions to 24 months for sisters, but every positive step should be applauded.
 

FWIW, I don’t think the limitations placed on sisters service (past or present) stems from a desire to push them to marry at a young age before missions so much as a belief among church leaders (misguided in my view) that brothers should take the lead and make up the majority of missionaries in the field. 

My friend and I were just talking about whether or not the church will extend sister missions to 2 years. Her daughter got home about a year ago and her other daughter will be leaving in about 4 months.  Both hated the idea of a two year mission. 😆

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Great news. I wish they also increased the length of missions to 24 months for sisters, but every positive step should be applauded.
 

FWIW, I don’t think the limitations placed on sisters service (past or present) stems from a desire to push them to marry at a young age before missions so much as a belief among church leaders (misguided in my view) that brothers should take the lead and make up the majority of missionaries in the field. 

What decade are you if you don’t mind sharing?  It is quite hard for me not to see a push for women to be married and concern that she would be less likely to if she went on a mission among leadership in my youth, but that may be due to how local leaders interpreted general leaders.  I was born late 50s, so talking about the 60s and 70s.  We in general given the jokes and references I heard at BYU were still assuming sister missionaries were sweet spirits destined not to get married when I hit college age, but as I said before the attitude towards missions was changing among women by then as some were making them Plan A and not Plan B (if I am not married, engaged or at least seriously dating by 21, I will go on a mission).

My memory is there was active discouragement as in ‘you don’t want to go on a mission because by the time you get back all the good men will be taken’ or variations on that theme.

I should research this some.  I grew up in California where there were less members than Utah, but still a decent population (there were about 7 girls and 5 boys my age in my ward iirc, not quite as many for my older sister and brother, but still the stake had a good size youth program, region felt massive).

Edited November 21, 2025 by Calm

[Buckeye]

Just now, Calm said:

What decade are you if you don’t mind sharing?  It is quite hard for me not to see a push for women to be married and concern that she would be less likely to if she went on a mission among leadership in my youth, but that may be due to how local leaders interpreted general leaders.

I’m nearly 50. I don’t doubt that marriage was a consideration before my time, but it’s not the impression I had as a young missionary in the late 90s or in my time working with youth in the church since then. 
 

Here’s a very helpful dialogue article on the subject. It could use a refresh to account for the last couple decades but is thorough in recounting the history of policies on sister missionaries through the turn of the century.  

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/articles/not-invite-but-welcome-the-history-and-impact-of-church-policy-on-sister-missionaries/

[Buckeye]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

My friend and I were just talking about whether or not the church will extend sister missions to 2 years. Her daughter got home about a year ago and her other daughter will be leaving in about 4 months.  Both hated the idea of a two year mission. 😆

Why would they hate an additional six months? Granted, you have to draw a line somewhere (it was 18 months for all missionaries at a time in the past) but if someone feels called to the work and engages for 18 months I don’t understand why they’d be opposed to a few more months. Especially for foreign language missions the last months can be the most rewarding and productive. 

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Why would they hate an additional six months? Granted, you have to draw a line somewhere (it was 18 months for all missionaries at a time in the past) but if someone feels called to the work and engages for 18 months I don’t understand why they’d be opposed to a few more months. Especially for foreign language missions the last months can be the most rewarding and productive. 

Probably mostly about expectations, they have a plan in their head and it feels wrong to change it.  Simple inertia, resistance to change.

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Why would they hate an additional six months? Granted, you have to draw a line somewhere (it was 18 months for all missionaries at a time in the past) but if someone feels called to the work and engages for 18 months I don’t understand why they’d be opposed to a few more months. Especially for foreign language missions the last months can be the most rewarding and productive. 

Probably because it’s a sacrifice and they are comfortable with the current sacrifice that is asked of them. I know when I served in the late 90s the elders were always joking and complaining about how unfair it was that they had to serve for two years and we got to serve for 18 months.

Speaking personally, I think 18 months is a great enough sacrifice for young women. They will have to sacrifice body, health, and time in the name of becoming mothers that will never be comprehensible to or sharable by men.  I’m totally fine with men sacrificing more for missions.   

[Calm]

29 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

I’m nearly 50. I don’t doubt that marriage was a consideration before my time, but it’s not the impression I had as a young missionary in the late 90s or in my time working with youth in the church since then. 
 

Here’s a very helpful dialogue article on the subject. It could use a refresh to account for the last couple decades but is thorough in recounting the history of policies on sister missionaries through the turn of the century.  

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/articles/not-invite-but-welcome-the-history-and-impact-of-church-policy-on-sister-missionaries/

Thanks for the article.  It confirmed my impression a mission was supposed to be a Plan B prior to college:

Quote

In 1964 the First Presidency dropped the missionary service age for all women to 21 but reaffirmed the church’s belief in appropriate gender roles: “It is hoped that normal social opportunities leading to proper marriage will not be interrupted nor disturbed by such recommendations. Those young women who do not have reasonable marriage prospects but who are personable, qualified and worthy may be recommended.”[30] This admonishment reminded women that although a lower age limit would make serving a mission an easier prospect for many, they were to serve only as a secondary life choice. 

The author summarizes in part a 1971 comment with

Quote

The difference in minimum ages for men and women is to promote young women’s opportunities for marriage. 

Quote

 

If a sister is (1) at least 21 years of age, (2) has good physical health, (3) is emotionally stable and secure, (4) has no immediate prospects for marriage, and (5) meets the other requirements for missionary service, she may be recommended for a mission. Bishops should be certain that each of these five prerequisites has been met before submitting recommendations for sisters to serve fulltime missions. 

The above with the “no immediate marriage prospects” is from ‘75.  I hit BYU in the summer of ‘76.

Early 80s, this feels like a definite change as in planning for a mission from the beginning is okay.

Quote

 

He then added, “They know why they are serving. Many have planned for years to go on a mission. . . .To you who are younger and single, although missionary service is not an obligation in the same sense as with elders, don’t forget the opportunity that is available to expand your world of service and experience by serving a mission.” 

 

Edited November 21, 2025 by Calm

[JAHS]

27 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Why would they hate an additional six months? Granted, you have to draw a line somewhere (it was 18 months for all missionaries at a time in the past) but if someone feels called to the work and engages for 18 months I don’t understand why they’d be opposed to a few more months. Especially for foreign language missions the last months can be the most rewarding and productive. 

During the 50's the length of a mission was up to 3 years depending on the location of the mission. In the 60's foreign missions were 2.5 years to give them time to learn the language.

[MorningStar]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

Good. It never made sense to me. Generally I find 18-year-old girls much more mature than 18-year-old boys so it didn’t make sense except for the theory that they wanted women to have that extra year in case they could get married. Which makes me vomit in my mouth, honestly.

Yeah, when the age was 21, that never made sense. I remember thinking if I wasn't married by then, then maybe I would have a hard time finding someone when I came back. 

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, MorningStar said:

Yeah, when the age was 21, that never made sense. I remember thinking if I wasn't married by then, then maybe I would have a hard time finding someone when I came back. 

You were not the only one.

[Pyreaux]

4 hours ago, bsjkki said:

Church lowers missionary age for women to 18 – Church News

"The First Presidency is pleased to announce that effective immediately, young women who choose to serve a full-time mission may begin their service at age 18 following graduation from high school or its equivalent. “While the Lord asks every worthy, able young man as part of his priesthood responsibility to prepare for and serve a mission, we reiterate that missionary service remains an optional opportunity for young women. We recognize that for those young women who desire to serve a full-time mission, the choice of age to begin service will not be the same for everyone.

“We extend our love to the youth of the Church and commend them for their faithfulness.”

I think more women will go on missions with this. 

It will provide an opportunity for more young women to serve who might otherwise have begun college, careers, or felt the pressure to marry. While some may not be, many young women today are emotionally, spiritually, and intellectually ready to serve earlier. The age change will dramatically increase the number of sister missionaries. They now align completely in terms of age with their male counterparts. This creates an appearance of greater equity.

That said, stand clear and watch this chauvinistic swan dive. I do worry for the Sisters and think there could be an increased risk. I think though Elders are just as immature, if not more so, but the earlier age for young men was tolerated because their gender offered a form of situational safety buffer that young women inherently lack.

While there was a prevalent cultural expectation within the Church for young women (and to some extent still is) to marry young and begin a family. I suggest the policy of an older age allowed for a greater wealth of street smarts before facing the rigors of a mission away from home, often in challenging environments. I have concerns about the safety, maturity, and naivety of 18-year-olds in real-world challenges. Missionaries, regardless of gender, are frequently exposed to high-crime areas, traffic accidents, aggressive individuals, and difficult living conditions. Being targets for theft, harassment, or other forms of exploitation due to their distinctive appearance and often limited local experience.

While the Church emphasizes pre-mission preparation and safety guidelines, and though Missionaries will mostly only need worry about car accidents and illnesses, I just hope the absurd fiction that was Heretic 2024 doesn't become a documentary.

Edited November 21, 2025 by Pyreaux

[Buckeye]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

During the 50's the length of a mission was up to 3 years depending on the location of the mission. In the 60's foreign missions were 2.5 years to give them time to learn the language.

Yep, the length of service has moved around a bunch over the years. 

[Buckeye]

37 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

It will provide an opportunity for more young women to serve who might otherwise have begun college, careers, or felt the pressure to marry. While some may not be, many young women today are emotionally, spiritually, and intellectually ready to serve earlier. The age change will dramatically increase the number of sister missionaries. They now align completely in terms of age with their male counterparts. This creates an appearance of greater equity.

That said, stand clear, watch this chauvinistic swan dive. I do worry for the Sisters and think there could be increased risks. I think though Elders are just as immature, if not more so, but the earlier age for young men was tolerated because their gender offered a form of situational safety buffer that young women inherently lack.

While there was a prevalent cultural expectation within the Church for young women (and to some extent still is) to marry young and begin a family. I suggest an older age allows for greater wealth of street smarts before facing the rigors of a mission away from home, often in challenging environments. I have concerns about their safety, maturity, and naivety of 18-year-olds with the real-world challenges out there. Missionaries, regardless of gender, are frequently exposed to high-crime areas, traffic accidents, aggressive individuals, and difficult living conditions. Being targets for theft, harassment, or other forms of exploitation due to their distinctive appearance and often limited local experience.

While the Church emphasizes pre-mission preparation and safety guidelines, and though most Missionaries risk car accidents and illness, I just hope the absurd fiction that was Heretic 2024 doesn't become a documentary.

I agree with your sentiment in general. A lot of youth would benefit by living a year or two away from home before serving. Mission presidents I’ve talked with absolutely love getting “older” missionaries who tend to have fewer challenges and hit the ground running. When I discussion missions with my youth I emphasize that for all of them 18 is just an option and not an expectation. Still, most all go then because their friends are doing the same, they don’t want to feel left behind, and the mission is sort of a clean divider between HS and college years.  

[Peacefully]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I’d heard the age difference was because serving wasn’t a duty for girls like it was for boys. Plus it helped tamp down mission romances.

But as far as I know it’s all just rumors and myth. I don’t think the church has ever explained the age difference (at least not that I ever heard).

The church is secretive about weird stuff sometimes. 

I heard that it was because too many girls would go and would outnumber the priesthood holders. Somehow that was seen as a bad thing. Maybe because the girls couldn’t perform the ordinances. Idk. In a vacuum, people make up all kinds of theories. 

[Buckeye]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Probably because it’s a sacrifice and they are comfortable with the current sacrifice that is asked of them. I know when I served in the late 90s the elders were always joking and complaining about how unfair it was that they had to serve for two years and we got to serve for 18 months.

Speaking personally, I think 18 months is a great enough sacrifice for young women. They will have to sacrifice body, health, and time in the name of becoming mothers that will never be comprehensible to or sharable by men.  I’m totally fine with men sacrificing more for missions.   

All good things involve sacrifice that is outweighed by the blessings. I’ve heard those jokes too but push back (nicely I hope) on why they’re serving in the first place. If someone really feels the call and loves the work, they’d want to stay another six months or more (noting again that all missions must end sometime).

Likewise, while pregnancy certainly brings sacrifice and downsides, the women in my life have all said that -on net- it is a positive experience and they’re grateful to have had it. Personally, while I have no expectation it could happen as I’m male, if I could experience pregnancy I’d take the opportunity based on the recommendation from the women in my life who say it’s a net positive.

I guess I view missionary service for sisters the same way. if you’re just out there to check a box fine, the sooner you’re done the better. But if the work is joyful I’d welcome more time in it. 

[bluebell]

39 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

All good things involve sacrifice that is outweighed by the blessings. I’ve heard those jokes too but push back (nicely I hope) on why they’re serving in the first place. If someone really feels the call and loves the work, they’d want to stay another six months or more (noting again that all missions must end sometime).

Likewise, while pregnancy certainly brings sacrifice and downsides, the women in my life have all said that -on net- it is a positive experience and they’re grateful to have had it. Personally, while I have no expectation it could happen as I’m male, if I could experience pregnancy I’d take the opportunity based on the recommendation from the women in my life who say it’s a net positive.

I guess I view missionary service for sisters the same way. if you’re just out there to check a box fine, the sooner you’re done the better. But if the work is joyful I’d welcome more time in it. 

We’ll have to agree to disagree.