tonie Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 Whether or not, societal circumstances prevented some from serving a mission, arbitrarily clinging to a "My future spouse must be a RM so we can improve the stock of the Church", is as narrow-minded and self-righteous as on can get. It is self-righteous because it pressumes ones own righteousness. 1
JAHS Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 Whether or not, societal circumstances prevented some from serving a mission, arbitrarily clinging to a "My future spouse must be a RM so we can improve the stock of the Church", is as narrow-minded and self-righteous as on can get. It is self-righteous because it pressumes ones own righteousness.While on my mission 40 years ago I saw the few sisters who were there and really admired their spirit and dedication to the gospel. You knew they were there because they really wanted to be there; not because they were expected to be there or because they were dodging the draft. This is why I though it would be nice to find a sister RM to marry. I was open to any possibilities but as luck would have it I fell in love with one and married her.
The Nehor Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 Whether or not, societal circumstances prevented some from serving a mission, arbitrarily clinging to a "My future spouse must be a RM so we can improve the stock of the Church", is as narrow-minded and self-righteous as on can get. It is self-righteous because it pressumes ones own righteousness.If I was to limit myself to RMs (I do not) it would not be because I thought I was so great but because I figured I needed the help. Then again I know too many sister missionaries to be convinced that the designation is worth anything. For many it was. For some....not so much. 1
stemelbow Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 It's unintended, but it's better then the old assumption that women had for each other. Women who did serve were unmarriable, it used to be. My wife served a mission and she recalls the attitude among many girls. The other laughable issue she faced was, "you're like going on a real mission?" says an MTC sister going to Temple Square. "I thought those were for girls who were, well, not pretty."
JAHS Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 I would like anyone to try and tell me my RM wife of 40 years in not pretty. 2
stemelbow Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 I would like anyone to try and tell me my RM wife of 40 years in not pretty. Why would you like that? Who cares what people think?
Scott Lloyd Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 Whether or not, societal circumstances prevented some from serving a mission, arbitrarily clinging to a "My future spouse must be a RM so we can improve the stock of the Church", is as narrow-minded and self-righteous as on can get. It is self-righteous because it pressumes ones own righteousness.I agree, and I will be sure to tell that to the first person I encounter who insists that his/her "future spouse must be RM so we can improve the stock of the Church." So far, though, I've not met anyone who has that sentiment.
Calm Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 (edited) Stats show that success in marriage among LDS goes up if one is a RM and goes way up if both are, so I can see why some might be inclined to want an RM for a partner given how hard marriage can be at times. Not saying that should be the only reason one should use in judging a mate or even that it should be one, but I don't see it as problematic if one is aware of that and takes it into consideration along with many other attributes or lack there of among perspective mates. Edited January 21, 2015 by calmoriah
Scott Lloyd Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 Stats show that success in marriage among LDS goes up if one is a RM and goes way up if both are, so I can see why some might be inclined to want an RM for a partner given how hard marriage can be at times. Not saying that should be the only reason one should use in judging a mate or even that it should be one, but I don't see it as problematic if one is aware of that and takes it into consideration along with many other attributes or lack there of among perspective mates.Oh, definitely. But that's not the same thing as claiming it will "improve the future stock of the Church."
Calm Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 (edited) Oh yeah, just thought I would mention that since the desire for many is not just a random status thing. PS: I have never heard the improving stock comment or anything close to it... Unless it is a very weird version of the interest in how the dynamics of the family are going to change when you have two individuals as parents that are very familiar with the scriptures and are comfortable with teaching from them, being leaders, etc. That would have to be a really far jump/twist though to get from here to there. Edited January 21, 2015 by calmoriah
Scott Lloyd Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 Here's a side note. Nineteen-year-old sister missionaries were not unheard of prior to 2012. My mom served a mission back in the 1920s at age 19. The Church wanted to call her older brother, but, being the only boy in the family, he was needed to help run the family farm. So her parents got them to call her in his place. Things were different back then.
Scott Lloyd Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 Oh yeah, just thought I would mention that since the desire for many is not just a random status thing.One of the many things that delight me about my wife is that she is an RM. But I would not have insisted on that as a pre-requisite.
why me Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 (edited) The Segullah Blog has an interesting article discussing a development that I've seen in my own area. Since the age changes for missionaries, there is a much greater expectation (and pressure) for young women to serve missions. From the comments: Assuming this is the case throughout the Church, or even isolated areas of the Church, my question is whether or not this is an intended or unintended side-effect? Did Church leaders expect for there to be social pressure on young women encouraging them to serve? Or would this be something that would have them scratching their heads thinking "Wow, we didn't see this coming!" Obviously it involves a little mind reading, but what do you think? Is it a good thing or bad thing?I haven't seen this at all. Young women are serving missions but those that don't haven't felt any pressure to serve. I think that it is still a matter of choice without social pressure. Also, as with any piece of writing on the internet one must question its truth or whether or not the writer just imagines the pressure or if it really does exist. Lowering the age of serving on the mission by a couple of years should not put any pressure on young woman. But it does put off pressure to marry young. Edited January 21, 2015 by why me
The Nehor Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 I would like anyone to try and tell me my RM wife of 40 years in not pretty. She looks good but what is that goblin-thing standing next to her? 1
JAHS Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 She looks good but what is that goblin-thing standing next to her?Hey, give me a break, it was the early 70s :-)
rongo Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 (edited) I'm not sure how the huge increase in sisters will affect this (I'm pretty sure the "missionary effect" described below won't hold with current societal trends), but I found something that Elder Anderson shared with bishops and stake presidents to be very interesting. He said that the average number of children per U.S. household is currently 2.3. Among LDS couples where either spouse served a mission, it's 3.7. Among LDS households where neither spouse served a mission, it's 1.5 (far below the national average). I think that this effect will probably increase with respect to couples where neither served a mission, but I'm not sure if the trend of significantly higher rates of children where either served a mission will continue to hold long-term. It would be great if it did, though. Obviously, there will likely be more couples in the future with parents who served missions. There are more elders now than before, too. Edited January 21, 2015 by rongo
Pahoran Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 I would like anyone to try and tell me my RM wife of 40 years in not pretty. Actually they're a cute couple. But is that a mullet I see? That has to be grounds for a disciplinary council if anything is! Regards, Pahoran
The Nehor Posted January 22, 2015 Posted January 22, 2015 Hey, give me a break, it was the early 70s :-)Sorry, it was just such a perfect setup, I missed the early 70s.
Scott Lloyd Posted January 22, 2015 Posted January 22, 2015 Sorry, it was just such a perfect setup, I missed the early 70s.Because you weren't born yet, or because you were out of touch?
The Nehor Posted January 22, 2015 Posted January 22, 2015 Because you weren't born yet, or because you were out of touch?Both. I technically saw the end of the 70s but infants and toddlers are not renowned for their memory.
Scott Lloyd Posted January 22, 2015 Posted January 22, 2015 I'm not sure how the huge increase in sisters will affect this (I'm pretty sure the "missionary effect" described below won't hold with current societal trends), but I found something that Elder Anderson shared with bishops and stake presidents to be very interesting. He said that the average number of children per U.S. household is currently 2.3. Among LDS couples where either spouse served a mission, it's 3.7. Among LDS households where neither spouse served a mission, it's 1.5 (far below the national average). I think that this effect will probably increase with respect to couples where neither served a mission, but I'm not sure if the trend of significantly higher rates of children where either served a mission will continue to hold long-term. It would be great if it did, though. Obviously, there will likely be more couples in the future with parents who served missions. There are more elders now than before, too.Interesting, but it stands to reason: Parents who have served missions could be expected to have a thorough understanding of the plan of salvation and, ergo, be dialed into the doctrine regarding the eternal nature of the family unit, the blessing of posterity and eternal increase, etc. Conversely, those who don't have such a thorough understanding might be more susceptible to worldly influences regarding having no or fewer children, not making family a high priority, etc. Alert: I am not saying here that one must be returned missionary to understand and appreciate the plan of salvation, only that returned missionaries are more apt to have that understanding vis a vis those who aren't.
cinepro Posted January 22, 2015 Author Posted January 22, 2015 I haven't seen this at all. Young women are serving missions but those that don't haven't felt any pressure to serve. I'm afraid I'm going to need you to explain this a little more. In what context have you "not seen this at all"? Are you somehow plugged in to the experiences of 19 and 20-year-old LDS women in such a way that you have insight into any pressure they may or may not be feeling regarding missionary service? Obviously, the scope of that blog is limited to the author's experience and the experiences of the commenters, but based on the comments, it appears to be happening in some places. It was very difficult, because I did face judgment for it. I remember one situation in which a sister from my ward who I had known for about nine years was visiting my mother and I. After discussing her son’s papers that had just been submitted, she turned to me and asked that very popular question: “So, are you going to go on a mission?” Her wide smile said that she expected me to say yes. I didn’t- but then rushed to explain. “I got a no. I prayed really hard, and He said no.” I’ll never forget what she said to me. “Oh, well. I’m sorry to hear that. I’m sure as you get older, you’ll get a handle on how to interpret the spirit better.” Although my favorite quote is this: And here’s the equality we fought so hard to obtain.
Duncan Posted January 22, 2015 Posted January 22, 2015 I'm afraid I'm going to need you to explain this a little more. In what context have you "not seen this at all"? Are you somehow plugged in to the experiences of 19 and 20-year-old LDS women in such a way that you have insight into any pressure they may or may not be feeling regarding missionary service? Obviously, the scope of that blog is limited to the author's experience and the experiences of the commenters, but based on the comments, it appears to be happening in some places. Although my favorite quote is this: I will ask the sisters here this afternoon, at our ward coorelation mtg. if they felt any pressure to serve, one comes from Y O ming? or something? I think it's near Japan or Mongolia and the other comes from a tiny too bit town in Oilberta, tsk tsk tsk
Scott Lloyd Posted January 22, 2015 Posted January 22, 2015 I will ask the sisters here this afternoon, at our ward coorelation mtg. if they felt any pressure to serve, one comes from Y O ming? or something? I think it's near Japan or Mongolia and the other comes from a tiny too bit town in Oilberta, tsk tsk tskI'll be interested to hear what their response is.
Recommended Posts