Young Women Now "Expected" To Serve Missions?

[a_little_taller]

It's always been my understanding that a mission is not a "duty" for young women. It is an option and if they feel it is right for them, the church is happy to have them serve if they choose to. In fact, with the announcement of the lowering of mission age for young women to age 19, President Monson said:

"We affirm that missionary work is a priesthood duty—and we encourage all young men who are worthy and who are physically able and mentally capable, to respond to the call to serve. Many young women also serve, but they are not under the same mandate to serve as are the young men. We assure the young sisters of the Church, however, that they make a valuable contribution as missionaries, and we welcome their service."

However, amid the attendant excitement over this announcement and the flood of young women choosing to serve missions right now, that "optional" part of the message seems to be lost. It feels that the expectations have changed.

I recently attended a "farewell" for a niece who decided to serve a mission. We are all very excited for her. However, I was a little concerned by the bishop's remarks at the end of the meeting. He commended her on her decisions to "fulfill her duty" and on "setting the proper example for all young women in the ward to serve a full time mission." Later at her home, my 20 year old daughter was asked multiple times when she was putting in her papers. I could tell it was awkward for her because she has never felt the prompting that a mission was right for her. But several people there just acted like it was a given that she would choose to go.

I guess my concern is for those young women who do not choose to serve a mission. Are they judged as less worthy because they didn't go (even though they aren't expected to go)? Will the new standard be that young men looking for wives will only consider those who served a mission? What of those who are in their 20's and the mission age just skipped over them? Also, I wonder how many young women are being caught up in the emotion of this announcement and are submitting their papers just because it seems like the "cool" thing to do without really giving thought to if it the right thing for them.

Edited March 25, 2013 by a_little_taller

[CV75]

It's always been my understanding that a mission is not a "duty" for young women. It is an option and if they feel it is right for them, the church is happy to have them serve if they choose to. In fact, with the announcement of the lowering of mission age for young women to age 19, President Monson said:

"We affirm that missionary work is a priesthood duty—and we encourage all young men who are worthy and who are physically able and mentally capable, to respond to the call to serve. Many young women also serve, but they are not under the same mandate to serve as are the young men. We assure the young sisters of the Church, however, that they make a valuable contribution as missionaries, and we welcome their service."

However, amid the attendant excitement over this announcement and the flood of young women choosing to serve missions right now, that "optional" part of the message seems to be lost. It feels that the expectations have changed.

I recently attended a "farewell" for a niece who decided to serve a mission. We are all very excited for her. However, I was a little concerned by the bishop's remarks at the end of the meeting. He commended her on her decisions to "fulfill her duty" and on "setting the proper example for all young women in the ward to serve a full time mission." Later at her home, my 20 year old daughter was asked multiple times when she was putting in her papers. I could tell it was awkward for her because she has never felt the prompting that a mission was right for her. But several people there just acted like it was a given that she would choose to go.

I guess my concern is for those young women who do not choose to serve a mission. Are they judged by as less worthy because they didn't go (even though they aren't expected to go)? Will the new standard be that young men looking for wives will only consider those who served a mission? What of those who are in their 20's and the mission age just skipped over them? Also, I wonder how many young women are being caught up in the emotion of this announcement and are submitting their papers just because it seems like the "cool" thing to do without really giving thought to if it the right thing for them.

With the change in age requirements, all are invited to do the right thing for the right reason, and not to judge others about going/not going, or judge their reasons. I think that, as with any expansion of agency, the bar has been raised for all involved.

[Duncan]

In our stake I would say in the last 2 years 4 (pretty sure that's right) young women got their mission but only two actually are serving. The other went out for a week but came home and the other got her call but decided to get engaged. So, in my area, at least women are expected to serve missions

[Glenn101]

In our stake I would say in the last 2 years 4 (pretty sure that's right) young women got their mission but only two actually are serving. The other went out for a week but came home and the other got her call but decided to get engaged. So, in my area, at least women are expected to serve missions

In order to go on a mission, both male and female still have to put in a request to serve a mission before the call, correct? If those sisters received a call, it was in response to their own request.

Glenn

[blackstrap]

These are inappropriate expectations. Read President Monson's remarks again and note the clear delineation set forth.People will do and say what they will but that does not mean they are correct in their assumptions.

[rpn]

The bishop was out of sync with the program (or sleep deprived and on autopilot with what he says with the young men). Just tell your 20 year old daughter that she could say, "I haven't received inspiration that I should go." Or maybe "Isn't it wonderful when women decide to go".

There is a lot of excitement among young women for this, and I can see how women are feeling like maybe they should consider what they never really thought of before.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Though women are not under the same call, and my wife feels the same way, we both think that women should serve. It is beneficial to them. They are just not under the obligation to serve as men are. We have several women that are serving missions in our ward right now.

[Duncan]

In order to go on a mission, both male and female still have to put in a request to serve a mission before the call, correct? If those sisters received a call, it was in response to their own request.

Glenn

all 4 received mission calls but only two are actually serving, as the other two either didn't go or went for a week or something and the came home

[Calm]

Though women are not under the same call, and my wife feels the same way, we both think that women should serve. It is beneficial to them.

One of the benefits being the lower divorce rate for when both spouses are RMs (and don't ask me right now for a CFR because I can't remember where I read this...will look for it when I am less sleep deprived).

[rongo]

I might have been your source. I shared a bunch of statistics from Elder Perry for when *only one* parent served a mission. They are astounding.

One I remember is that the average number of children when one parent served a mission is 3.7. When neither parent served a mission, it's 1.7 (well below the national average of 2.3).

If I don't remember to re-post them, give me a CFR, and I'll look them up when I'm home . . .

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

One of the benefits being the lower divorce rate for when both spouses are RMs (and don't ask me right now for a CFR because I can't remember where I read this...will look for it when I am less sleep deprived).

I don't need a CFR. I married an RM so....... I think it is really really a good thing for both men and women to serve. I see the benefits of it in my own marriage. One benefit is being able to communicate. I know that alone has been a huge blessing for me. Edited March 25, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I might have been your source. I shared a bunch of statistics from Elder Perry for when *only one* parent served a mission. They are astounding.

One I remember is that the average number of children when one parent served a mission is 3.7. When neither parent served a mission, it's 1.7 (well below the national average of 2.3).

If I don't remember to re-post them, give me a CFR, and I'll look them up when I'm home . . .

Interesting.

A side note, I have 4 kids.

[rodheadlee]

Um, I thought women wanted to be like men? With the same responsibilities and authority. What's the problem with expecting them to serve a mission just like the men?

[Robert F. Smith]

..................................

I recently attended a "farewell" for a niece who decided to serve a mission. We are all very excited for her. However, I was a little concerned by the bishop's remarks at the end of the meeting. He commended her on her decisions to "fulfill her duty" and on "setting the proper example for all young women in the ward to serve a full time mission." Later at her home, my 20 year old daughter was asked multiple times when she was putting in her papers. I could tell it was awkward for her because she has never felt the prompting that a mission was right for her. But several people there just acted like it was a given that she would choose to go.

In this life we will always have to bear with gauche and ignorant talk by yokels who know no better. I wince to think of the dumb things I said when I was much younger, and I still say dumb things sometimes. They just slip out.

I guess my concern is for those young women who do not choose to serve a mission. Are they judged as less worthy because they didn't go (even though they aren't expected to go)? Will the new standard be that young men looking for wives will only consider those who served a mission? What of those who are in their 20's and the mission age just skipped over them? Also, I wonder how many young women are being caught up in the emotion of this announcement and are submitting their papers just because it seems like the "cool" thing to do without really giving thought to if it the right thing for them.

It is actually true that returned missionary sisters make better wives. They are less selfish and immature, and have had to learn to live and share with someone else at close quarters. Just like the guys, who likewise make better husbands.

However, no one should go on a mission (guy or gal) unless they believe it is the right thing for them.

[Stone holm]

As a Bishop, I fought to keep the Sister Missionaries in our Ward because with very few exceptions they were much more productive than the Elders. That is not to say they didn't cause a certain amount of drama as they were always complaining in their monthly reports about the Ward Mission Leader or someone in the Ward -- but they were fantastic missionaries, and Lord help the person that got in their way! I also challenged the discrimination that was going on as to encouraging the boys, but discouraging the girls. I don't feel that anyone young man, young woman, or older couple should feel obligated to go on a mission -- some people just really don't belong out in the mission field. Encourage all of them, but condemn none of them.

[ControlFreak]

As evidenced by the responses so far, I think sisters will absolutely be "expected" to serve missions. I put that in quotes, like the OP, because no, the brethren aren't directly saying they are obligated to go, but social pressure from other women and future marriage candidates will undoubtedly make it feel like an obligation.

The same thing happens with the men. The prophet's call to serve a mission is obviously compelling, but the fact that the LDS women won't take a second look at you until you do becomes an even more compelling reason for many.

I worry that it could be a real social problem. I worry that women in the ward could become even more cliquish and condescending towards those who didn't serve. I worry that women who opt not to serve (because it isn't expected?) will be seen as lesser options for marriage.

Obviously strong marriages and appropriately sized families are in no way dependent on serving a mission, nor are wisdom and life's experiences unattainable in other ways. I'm hopeful the members will be able to keep that in mind.

[Stone holm]

As evidenced by the responses so far, I think sisters will absolutely be "expected" to serve missions. I put that in quotes, like the OP, because no, the brethren aren't directly saying they are obligated to go, but social pressure from other women and future marriage candidates will undoubtedly make it feel like an obligation.

The same thing happens with the men. The prophet's call to serve a mission is obviously compelling, but the fact that the LDS women won't take a second look at you until you do becomes an even more compelling reason for many.

I worry that it could be a real social problem. I worry that women in the ward could become even more cliquish and condescending towards those who didn't serve. I worry that women who opt not to serve (because it isn't expected?) will be seen as lesser options for marriage.

Obviously strong marriages and appropriately sized families are in no way dependent on serving a mission, nor are wisdom and life's experiences unattainable in other ways. I'm hopeful the members will be able to keep that in mind.

Remind me again why it's appropriate to put social pressure on young men, but not young women?

[ControlFreak]

Remind me again why it's appropriate to put social pressure on young men, but not young women?

I don't think it is. I disapprove of social expectations on males too. It should be a private matter as there are many reasons why someone can or cannot serve.

But there is also a difference if we say that it isn't expected, but then make it socially expected.

[Buzzard]

Right after the announcement concerning missionary age, there was an article in the Ensign about sister missionaries making the mission decision, including an example of a sister who had received her call, but then became engaged and married instead. So the church itself is trying to ensure that the members know that the young women are not under a mission obligation.

However, I can see a cultural attitude forming that young women who serve missions would be considered better marriage prospects, much the same as is now with young men. Time will tell, I suppose.

[Stone holm]

Right after the announcement concerning missionary age, there was an article in the Ensign about sister missionaries making the mission decision, including an example of a sister who had received her call, but then became engaged and married instead. So the church itself is trying to ensure that the members know that the young women are not under a mission obligation.

However, I can see a cultural attitude forming that young women who serve missions would be considered better marriage prospects, much the same as is now with young men. Time will tell, I suppose.

Interesting, that would be a major change in LDS culture, I can remember when the general attitude was that young women only went on missions when they couldn't find anyone to marry them, or when they were waiting for their fiancé to get back from his mission. The whole mission and marriage prospects thing isn't all that persuasive once you are outside Mormondom. Out here if they don't go to BYU, you just hope they marry someone who will convert and that is often a matter of wishful thinking. We could definitely use a couple Mormon university marriage mills out here like BYU and BYUI.

[DJBrown]

I was recently in a four hour training meeting with Elder Ballard. A bishop asked this very question about young women feeling like they have some duty to serve missions. I will never forget Elder Ballard's response. He said "you kill that message."

I have never heard one of the brethren make such a strong message about something like this.

Young women absolutely do not have the duty of serving missions. Young men do as a consequence of holding the priesthood.

[Stone holm]

I was recently in a four hour training meeting with Elder Ballard. A bishop asked this very question about young women feeling like they have some duty to serve missions. I will never forget Elder Ballard's response. He said "you kill that message."

I have never heard one of the brethren make such a strong message about something like this.

Young women absolutely do not have the duty of serving missions. Young men do as a consequence of holding the priesthood.

Yeah it's that babies in lieu of Priesthood thing again I guess..

[cinepro]

Yeah it's that babies in lieu of Priesthood thing again I guess..

And yet no one seems to advocate giving infertile women the priesthood...

[Stone holm]

And yet no one seems to advocate giving infertile women the priesthood...

Oh don't go there we wind up entangled in all kinds of issues if you do, better to believe Sarah was the norm instead of the exception.

[ERMD]

No obligation exists and no pressure by family, friends, priesthood leaders should be exerted. Similar to the experience related above, I attended a training session with Elder Holland, and he was emphatic that this was the case. Read the Prophet's words. Anyone who advises anything different is out of line.