Church lowers missionary age for women to 18

[bsjkki]

55 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. 

My husband was scheduled to return after his two years were served. There was a big push to extend by a group of missionaries, and they were doing the 'if you were faithful, you would want to extend.' They wanted their whole group to extend. He said no, he was going to go home when he was scheduled to go home. Soon after, the mission president put a kibosh on all mission extensions. My spouse felt very vindicated. 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

My husband was scheduled to return after his two years were served. There was a big push to extend by a group of missionaries, and they were doing the 'if you were faithful, you would want to extend.' They wanted their whole group to extend. He said no, he was going to go home when he was scheduled to go home. Soon after, the mission president put a kibosh on all mission extensions. My spouse felt very vindicated. 

Sometimes there’s the idea that if some sacrifice is good then more is better.  If and when God asks me to sacrifice then I will do my best.  But sacrificing for sacrifice’s sake doesn’t make sense to me. 

Edited November 22, 2025 by bluebell

[MustardSeed]

My husband was the only one who decided to stay on his mission for the full two years, while the rest left at the 18 month mark when they made that change back in the 1990ish.  
He said it’s one of his biggest regrets.  Hardest six months of his life.

[Chum]

4 hours ago, Buckeye said:

All good things involve sacrifice that is outweighed by the blessings.

This strikes me as a profoundly odd assertion. Doubly so for being an absolute. 

I don't make sacrifices; I make my best choices. That's all I can make.
(And what is a sacrifice in this context?  Is it a circle we draw around stuff we imagine we'd have?)

As for when good things come along, it's when bad things aren't ruling the day. 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

My husband was the only one who decided to stay on his mission for the full two years, while the rest left at the 18 month mark when they made that change back in the 1990ish.  
He said it’s one of his biggest regrets.  Hardest six months of his life.

I still occasionally have dreams where they call me back to the mission field. They aren’t happy dreams.

[Buckeye]

5 minutes ago, Chum said:

This strikes me as a profoundly odd assertion. Doubly so for being an absolute. 

I don't make sacrifices; I make my best choices. That's all I can make.
(And what is a sacrifice in this context?  Is it a circle we draw around stuff we imagine we'd have?)

As for when good things come along, it's when bad things aren't ruling the day. 

Sacrifice means to make sacred. It’s to take something - time, talents, resources - and put it to a higher, more godly, purpose. The act always requires a loss, an investment, giving up something. Examples include crops and flocks in OT physical sacrifices, a broken heart and contrite spirit in NT sacrifices, and on and on. 

For purposes of this discussion, missionaries sacrifice their time (some of the best years of their life), relationships (leaving family, missing weddings, etc), education and earnings opportunities, and much more.

[Chum]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

Good on the Church for recognizing reality and clearing obstacles. 
Our society is so deeply dedicated to the adversary's plan (force first, punish quick, deny earned redemption) that Heavenly Father's plan (love first, ease the way, keep promises) seems like a novel approach.

[JAHS]

31 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I still occasionally have dreams where they call me back to the mission field. They aren’t happy dreams.

Me to. They are not necessarily unhappy dreams, but they do make me think, I already served my time, why I am here doing this again?

[MustardSeed]

56 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I still occasionally have dreams where they call me back to the mission field. They aren’t happy dreams.

My recurring nightmare was moving back in to my apartment at glenwood in Provo.  Finally I’d had enough when we flew to Utah and I put a hex on the door where I lived for three years..  it worked.  
 

Meet me in Provo and we will hit the MTC.

[The Nehor]

40 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

My recurring nightmare was moving back in to my apartment at glenwood in Provo.  Finally I’d had enough when we flew to Utah and I put a hex on the door where I lived for three years..  it worked.  
 

Meet me in Provo and we will hit the MTC.

I’ll bring the gasoline and matches…..oh wait, you meant…..okay, all good.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I still occasionally have dreams where they call me back to the mission field. They aren’t happy dreams.

Same. I am so incredibly grateful for my mission but I do not want to do it again. My husband has shared that he sometimes has similar dreams and feels the same.  It makes sense when someone is happy that a really hard thing is finished.

[Chum]

24 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Sacrifice means to make sacred. It’s to take something - time, talents, resources - and put it to a higher, more godly, purpose.

Sure. It's a broad umbrella and this aligns with a lot of it.

26 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

The act always requires a loss, an investment, giving up something.

We are told that that ancient sacrifice (re: the Law of  Moses) can work this way. It was part of a zero sum equation, in a world of limited resources. If you did A and A involved loss of a physical asset, then God had to do B. 
It is probably good that the Law of the Covenant updated things like sacrifice; the zero sum thing kept leading us into thinking we could negotiate with God. Which was never our best moment.

In a modern context tho, the following notion is silly.  'It is fully impossible to shift the smallest bit of ourselves closer to deity without incurring substantive, equitable loss.'
I've never known someone who's life would be well reflected in that statement.

[Calm]

43 minutes ago, Chum said:

the zero sum thing kept leading us into thinking we could negotiate with God. Which was never our best moment.

Can you imagine Pres Nelson negotiating with God that instead of finding the usual number of required members (let’s say 100,000 members as someone claimed used to be the requirement) before opening a temple in Russia, why not go for 90,000 and then when the Lord agreed, said “well, how about 80,000?  Surely 80,000 good members deserve a temple they can get to easily.”  And of course it continues with 70,000 on down until it gets to 20,000, at which point Pres Nelson rested because he knows there’s about that many on record and God didn’t specify they had to be active.

Only it’s dropped to 18,000ish now….

Edited November 22, 2025 by Calm

[Rain]

7 hours 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. 

I loved going home, not because I didn't like my mission or felt like I was checking the box, but because I felt it was time for my next mission in life. 

[ZealouslyStriving]

2 hours ago, JAHS said:

Me to. They are not necessarily unhappy dreams, but they do make me think, I already served my time, why I am here doing this again?

I have the complete opposite reaction- I wake up yearning to go back.

[Buckeye]

6 hours ago, Rain said:

I loved going home, not because I didn't like my mission or felt like I was checking the box, but because I felt it was time for my next mission in life. 

I was very sad to leave initially because there was an amazing family I was teaching who was preparing for baptism and I left before it. But I was also happy to move on to my next life stage. 
I’m not suggesting that there’s a magic number of months perfect for every missionary. 18 could be best for some; 24 for others; maybe even longer. What I’m saying is that if 24 months is good for young men, many young women may find it the correct length as well and they should have that opportunity. 
ETA: I’ve had three sons serve. One served the full 24. One a few months less due to COVID. One served only 12 months. It was the right amount for him even though some in our ward were surprised to see him home “early”. I have a daughter serving now. I don’t know if she’d take it but I know she’d like to have the same opportunity for 24 months as her brothers. 

Edited November 22, 2025 by Buckeye

[Buckeye]

9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I still occasionally have dreams where they call me back to the mission field. They aren’t happy dreams.

Going back to my mission years would be a negative for me too. Not a nightmare, but certainly a step backwards. Kind of like my high school years - I enjoyed them and grew immensely but would not want to go back. 
Now, if the dream we’re about serving a couples mission with my wife, that would be a happy one. 

[bsjkki]

Overall, I like this change. I think more girls will go on missions now. I see this dramatically changing the make up of freshman in college in church schools and other schools in Utah. 

[Senator]

10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I still occasionally have dreams where they call me back to the mission field. They aren’t happy dreams.

I had those for probably a decade after my mission.  Horrifyingly depressing is the best way to describe them.

[JAHS]

22 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. 

That might be true but is that the real reason they lowered the age?
This UK News article seems to think so:
Mormon church makes major rule change in bid to get more women serving missions

The church still says women are not obligated to serve. 

 

[MustardSeed]

5 minutes ago, JAHS said:

That might be true but is that the real reason they lowered the age?
This UK News article seems to think so:
Mormon church makes major rule change in bid to get more women serving missions

The church still says women are not obligated to serve. 

 

IMO the church is simply trying to even the playing fields where there isnt reasonable necessity to remain otherwise.  
 

With significant imbalances, it’s pleasant to see these gestures.   This one feels pretty “no duh” to me, I never understood the discrepancy to begin with. 
 

 

[MustardSeed]

Speaking of which, but if they just had everybody serve the same amount of time? 
what if they were clear that women are now obligated? Or (better, imo) if they took obligation away and let people make their own decisions?

Should a church obligate people?

Should the church obligate seniors?

Why is there an obligation? 

[JAHS]

24 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Speaking of which, but if they just had everybody serve the same amount of time? 
what if they were clear that women are now obligated? Or (better, imo) if they took obligation away and let people make their own decisions?

Should a church obligate people?

Should the church obligate seniors?

Why is there an obligation? 

I think it goes back to the charge Jesus gave His apostles who were also priesthood holders. It's an important part of the job description.

[bluebell]

57 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Speaking of which, but if they just had everybody serve the same amount of time? 
what if they were clear that women are now obligated? Or (better, imo) if they took obligation away and let people make their own decisions?

Should a church obligate people?

Should the church obligate seniors?

Why is there an obligation? 

Do you mean why is there a perceived priesthood duty to serve a mission? I think it's included in the oath and covenant of the priesthood but to be honest I haven't really studied it and have just taken our leaders at their word.

Or do you mean why are there obligations in general? 

If an obligation is a moral duty (like the online dictionary says), then I can't imagine how the gospel of Christ would work without them.  All covenants comes with moral duties attached to them.  I think someone could try to argue that the covenant of the priesthood does not include the obligation to preach the gospel, but I don't think there's any way to argue that the covenant of the priesthood includes no obligations at all.

I don't know if a church should obligate people, but I think that God should.  If a church is authorized to act in the name of God, then I think the church would have to teach people about the existence of the obligations attached to the covenants members make with God, and also exhort them to keep them. 

I think our leaders have probably taught things as obligations that actually aren't sometimes (and maybe sometimes they have failed to teach us that something is an obligation that we don't think is).

Edited November 22, 2025 by bluebell

[MustardSeed]

Was riffing off of this: 

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

The church still says women are not obligated to serve.