Pressure For Women To Serve Missions - Intended Or Unintended Side-Effect?

[CA Steve]

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

How you phrase the question will certainly determine how they answer. Perhaps a way to approach the question is by asking them if they think the lower age requirement had any impact on their own decision to serve or the the decisions of others. Additionally I think kids that age are unaware of how much peer pressure affects their own decisions.  For example, in my case, I had no intentions of serving until I watched and interacted with the 20 or so guys on my dorm floor who were planning on going. Between the excitement they showed and the constant "are you going to go?" questions, I decided to go. I do not regret that decision in any way, but certainly it was largely in part a result of peer pressure. Had I been asked on my mission if I had been pressured to go, my response would have been no, but now, as I look back on the process, I can see that the main reason I left was peer pressure.

 

We too are having the sisters over for dinner soon and I will see how they respond to the same sort of questions.

[Duncan]

I'll be interested to hear what their response is.

 

So, the sisters say they felt some pressure to do something with their life i.e boyfriend/marriage or a mission, "babies or converts" is what one said.  One said it was like working out of High School wasn't good enough to figure things out but the other one was going anyways before they lowered the age and she got some pressure to serve but yet it seems like it wasn't as bad. The one sister who was going kinda sounded like she had some male interest but people were being nosy rosy about it and kept on asking about this guy so I am not too sure. So, it seems that some pressure to go but pressure to do something and not necessarily a mission.

Edited January 22, 2015 by Duncan

[CA Steve]

So, the sisters say they felt some pressure to do something with their life i.e boyfriend/marriage or a mission, "babies or converts" is what one said.  One said it was like working out of High School wasn't good enough to figure things out but the other one was going anyways before they lowered the age and she got some pressure to serve but yet it seems like it wasn't as bad. The one sister who was going kinda sounded like she had some male interest but people were being nosy rosy about it and kept on asking about this guy so I am not too sure. So, it seems that some pressure to go but pressure to do something and not necessarily a mission.

Dinner last night with the sisters. I asked them if they thought the lowered age requirement had anything to do with them being on missions. Both of them responded with  a yes and both went on to explain how they felt increased pressure to serve after the announcement, one going so far as to say that she refused to answer the questions anymore until she actually had decided. Neither one thought they would have served a mission had the age stayed the same.

[Lost in Ohio]

I know women that will only date and marry male RMs so I know where the feeling is coming from. There are many worthy males who never served missions.

 

I joined the church as a 14 y/o young man in 1978.  I was blessed with inspired YM leaders and other YM who knew of me and cared about me.  I attended the very small ward where I was baptized (I was the only Teacher's Quorum member for a while) until the end of my Sophomore year of high school when my family moved across the state to another city.  Although I continued attending Sunday meetings without my family, the YM program was not strong there and I felt as though I was alone. No family support for church at home, new YM leaders who I think just didn't know what to do with me or how to help me.  Perhaps they simply didn't realize I was struggling as much as I was.  I don't really recall a serious conversation with my Bishop about serving a mission or how it would ever be possible.  In those days paying for a mission was a big deal, no standard $400/mo.  My family would not be able to support me on a mission and after graduation from high school I was unable to find employment in a struggling economy.  My 18 year old mind was desperate.  A mission and how to pay for it seemed an unachievable mystery, I had no idea a ward could help pay for a mission.  I simply didn't see a way that I could keep this commandment in my circumstances.

 

In any event I ended up joining the Navy.  A few years later while earning my commission and going to a university I certainly felt judged and excluded by future companions because of my lack of RM status and this affected my attendance for several years.  I eventually decided though, that if the women of the singles ward wanted to have a checklist and judge me that it was not going to affect my attendance at church.  If the faith I exhibited in joining the church as a YM and attending alone without a family for 4 years wasn't good enough for them then so be it.  It turned out to be a good decision since I met my wife that fall and we've now been married for 27 years, have 4 children, with the oldest 3 married to wonderful spouses in the temple.   

 

The decision to forgo a mission was mine and I take responsibility for it. There are certainly examples of those who were in similar or worse circumstances than my own who did go.  Perhaps I should have had more faith and been less impatient to get on with life after high school.   I think the church does a much better job today helping every YM, regardless of circumstances, prepare for and go on a mission.  Leaders just seem much more focused on it, not just telling us to go, but actually helping and showing how it can happen.  

 

In any event I hope we don't judge unrighteously either YM or YW who for whatever reason don't go on a mission.  

Edited January 26, 2015 by Lost in Ohio

[Pahoran]

Every community is defined by its commonalities.  (No doubt we will hear from some who will protest that this shouldn't be the case, and shouldn't we have a community that isn't defined by its commonalities?  To which I say we could, but then it wouldn't be a community.)  To the extent that mission service becomes more "normal" for young women, that normality will inevitably become a norm, and that norm will become an expectation.  The Church won't be imposing it, but the community will expect it.

 

That's how communities work.

 

Some will no doubt see this as some kind of nefarious plot, on the part of the leaders of the Church, to exercise "power and control" over the lives of the young women.  Let me state for the record that, in my lifetime, it has primarily been women who have been calling for the missionary age to be lowered for Sisters.

 

So let's just call this an unintended consequence.

Regards,
Pahoran

[Scott Lloyd]

Dinner last night with the sisters. I asked them if they thought the lowered age requirement had anything to do with them being on missions. Both of them responded with  a yes and both went on to explain how they felt increased pressure to serve after the announcement, one going so far as to say that she refused to answer the questions anymore until she actually had decided. Neither one thought they would have served a mission had the age stayed the same.

Not sure I understand this.

Were they saying they are on missions because they felt coerced to be there? That's a remarkable admission for any currently serving missionary to make, male or female. I'm quite certain I would never have said such a thing in casual conversation with a member, even if it were true.

I'm not satisfied you fully understood them.

Edited January 27, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Every community is defined by its commonalities.  (No doubt we will hear from some who will protest that this shouldn't be the case, and shouldn't we have a community that isn't defined by its commonalities?  To which I say we could, but then it wouldn't be a community.)  To the extent that mission service becomes more "normal" for young women, that normality will inevitably become a norm, and that norm will become an expectation.  The Church won't be imposing it, but the community will expect it.

 

That's how communities work.

 

Some will no doubt see this as some kind of nefarious plot, on the part of the leaders of the Church, to exercise "power and control" over the lives of the young women.  Let me state for the record that, in my lifetime, it has primarily been women who have been calling for the missionary age to be lowered for Sisters.

 

So let's just call this an unintended consequence.

Regards,

Pahoran

To the extent it is a consequence, it is definitely unintended.

But the incontrovertible fact is that there is no ecclesiastical expectation for women to serve missions as there is for men. So if women are encountering pressure, other factors must be blamed.

[sdc999]

To the extent it is a consequence, it is definitely unintended.

But the incontrovertible fact is that there is no ecclesiastical expectation for women to serve missions as there is for men. So if women are encountering pressure, other factors must be blamed.

This could be cleared up very easily if and only if they, the ecclesiastical leaders, wanted it to be.  Simply have a statement read from the pulpit stating such.  So long as an entity remains silent, said entity not only accepts but endorses the unintended consequences.

So in essence, it really doesn't matter what the other factors are, there are known to be other factors and it is not being addressed.  

[Duncan]

This could be cleared up very easily if and only if they, the ecclesiastical leaders, wanted it to be.  Simply have a statement read from the pulpit stating such.  So long as an entity remains silent, said entity not only accepts but endorses the unintended consequences.

So in essence, it really doesn't matter what the other factors are, there are known to be other factors and it is not being addressed.  

 

 

President Monson said last conference

 

"The Church continues to grow. We are now more than 15 million strong and increasing in numbers. Our missionary efforts are going forward unhindered. We have over 88,000 missionaries serving, sharing the gospel message the world over. We reaffirm that missionary work is a priesthood duty, and we encourage all worthy and able young men to serve. We are very grateful for the young women who also serve. They make a significant contribution, although they are not under the same mandate to serve as are the young men."

[sdc999]

It sounds like somebody or several in ecclesiastical positions are not heeding the advice of Monson.   Or members in general for that matter.  Maybe there needs to be another directive on the Ward level.  Not everyone tunes into conference.  Some treat it as a vacation weekend.  Just like a stake conference.  If all regular attendees showed up, they would have to turn people away.   

Edited January 27, 2015 by sdc999

[stemelbow]

It sounds like somebody or several in ecclesiastical positions are not heeding the advice of Monson.   Or members in general for that matter.  Maybe there needs to be another directive on the Ward level.  Not everyone tunes into conference.  Some treat it as a vacation weekend.  Just like a stake conference.  If all regular attendees showed up, they would have to turn people away.

To be fair there is more going on here than ecclesiastical pressure.

[Scott Lloyd]

It sounds like somebody or several in ecclesiastical positions are not heeding the advice of Monson.   Or members in general for that matter.  Maybe there needs to be another directive on the Ward level.  Not everyone tunes into conference.  Some treat it as a vacation weekend.  Just like a stake conference.  If all regular attendees showed up, they would have to turn people away.   

The concept expressed in the statement from President Monson that Duncan quoted has been reiterated again and again and again. If people aren't yet getting it, I don't think "another directive on the ward level" is going to make that much difference.

 

Besides, I'm not convinced the "problem" is as severe as some are making it out to be. And I question whether the ones who are casual about tuning in to general conference, or listening to or reading or paying heed to counsel from Church leaders are generally the type to be overly zealous about pressuring their daughters/sisters/relatives/acquaintances to serve missions.

 

And if I might make another point here, I find it unjust that whenever somebody notices a problem in Mormon culture, there is a knee-jerk reaction to blame the Church leadership, whether or not the blame is deserved.

Edited January 27, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Rain]

So long as an entity remains silent, said entity not only accepts but endorses the unintended consequences.

Nonsense. Besides the fact that general church leadership has stated there is no obligation as quoted it makes no sense to hold someone responsible for the actions of others based on something the first person did NOT say. All we would be doing is making statements all day long if that were the case.

[CA Steve]

Not sure I understand this.

Were they saying they are on missions because they felt coerced to be there? That's a remarkable admission for any currently serving missionary to make, male or female. I'm quite certain I would never have said such a thing in casual conversation with a member, even if it were true.

I'm not satisfied you fully understood them.

No one used the word coerced.

I am not satisfied you fully understood my response.

[Pahoran]

The quote feature isn't working for me today.

 

Scott wrote:

And if I might make another point here, I find it unjust that whenever somebody notices a problem in Mormon culture, there is a knee-jerk reaction to blame the Church leadership, whether or not the blame is deserved.

It's not just a knee-jerk reaction. Many kinds of jerks react that way.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Scott Lloyd]

No one used the word coerced.

I am not satisfied you fully understood my response.

Well, let me put it another way then.

 

It comes across to me that both sister missionaries told you they wouldn't be there serving missions if they hadn't been pressured into it by the folks back home.

 

Again, quite a remarkable confession for a missionary, and one i wouldn't have made in casual conversation with Church member while serving my mission, even if it had been true.

[CA Steve]

Well, let me put it another way then.

 

It comes across to me that both sister missionaries told you they wouldn't be there serving missions if they hadn't been pressured into it by the folks back home.

 

Again, quite a remarkable confession for a missionary, and one i wouldn't have made in casual conversation with Church member while serving my mission, even if it had been true.

A casual conversation with two sisters is not indicative of a pattern, so I am not drawing any conclusions from it. Neither one of them said they wouldn't be here if it wasn't for the pressure back home, rather they said they felt "increased pressure to serve when the age requirement was lowered. And I felt their statements about not serving a mission if the age requirement had not changed was more a nod toward thinking they would be married or in school than it was toward being pressured to go.

 

Regardless, I was surprised at the fact they both volunteered the information about the increase in pressure being directly related to the change in age. One of the sisters was very clear in describing this increased pressure, who it was from and how she responded to it.

[Stargazer]

I don't have any daughters but my two sons will not get pressure from me to go on a mission.  I would like for them to serve but they should go only because they want to go and not feel some social compulsion to go.  If they choose not to go, I will love them the same and not look at them any differently.

Yep, I took the same path, and none of them chose to serve, and all of them are now completely inactive.

I think "pressure" is perhaps a matter of degree. And I think that a hopeful but clear expectation is appropriate.

[Rain]

Yep, I took the same path, and none of them chose to serve, and all of them are now completely inactive.

I think "pressure" is perhaps a matter of degree. And I think that a hopeful but clear expectation is appropriate.

I think pressure is also in the eye of the beholder. I didn't realize this till DS was going into high school and went to a night where you could see all the clubs in high school. Lots of them said, "you should come join us." DS came out of there so angry because he hated the "pressure."

That's why I didn't want people to ask DS about going. I knew he would count it as pressure. The problem is that most people won't know what counts as pressure to someone and what counts as a gentle nudge. Even parents like us.

That said, I'm perfectly aware that if DS wanted to go that he would not have felt as much pressure. A few years later he was at one of those open houses welcoming in new people. People often only feel pressured when they don't want to do or do yet the thing they are being "pressured" to do. It takes wisdom and maturity sometimes to know when someone is actually pressuring you.

[Scott Lloyd]

A casual conversation with two sisters is not indicative of a pattern, so I am not drawing any conclusions from it. Neither one of them said they wouldn't be here if it wasn't for the pressure back home, rather they said they felt "increased pressure to serve when the age requirement was lowered. And I felt their statements about not serving a mission if the age requirement had not changed was more a nod toward thinking they would be married or in school than it was toward being pressured to go.

 

Regardless, I was surprised at the fact they both volunteered the information about the increase in pressure being directly related to the change in age. One of the sisters was very clear in describing this increased pressure, who it was from and how she responded to it.

Well, maybe some young women in the Church need to develop a backbone when it comes to encountering whatever social pressure -- or perceived social pressure -- may be present. No one on a general Church level of leadership has ever said it is the duty of young women to serve missions, only that their service is welcome should they make that choice. That is sufficient to the moment. (I think it would be anomalous for a bishop or stake president not to follow that same tack when dealing with young women.)

 

On the contrary, that concept (it being their duty) has been communicated to young men time and time again.

Edited January 28, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I think pressure is also in the eye of the beholder. I didn't realize this till DS was going into high school and went to a night where you could see all the clubs in high school. Lots of them said, "you should come join us." DS came out of there so angry because he hated the "pressure."

That's why I didn't want people to ask DS about going. I knew he would count it as pressure. The problem is that most people won't know what counts as pressure to someone and what counts as a gentle nudge. Even parents like us.

That said, I'm perfectly aware that if DS wanted to go that he would not have felt as much pressure. A few years later he was at one of those open houses welcoming in new people. People often only feel pressured when they don't want to do or do yet the thing they are being "pressured" to do. It takes wisdom and maturity sometimes to know when someone is actually pressuring you.

You raise a very valid point about pressure being in the eye of the beholder.

 

It can thus at times be difficult to distinguish undue pressure from gentle nudging, encouragement, inviting, admonition, challenging, commitment, warning, etc., which is what priesthood leaders are called to do.

 

At times, I feel pressured to do my home teaching. But I would never expect my priesthood leaders to back off from trying to get me to do it. After all, they are trying their best to do what the are called to do.