Abc News: "the New Face Of Mormonism: Women" (Missionaries)

[cinepro]

Just saw this on Nightline:

 

The New Face of Mormonism: Women

 

Finally, my questions about the rules for Sister Missionary's bras have been answered.

Edited January 29, 2015 by cinepro

[Freedom]

That's a great clip. Thanks for sharing. 

[VideoGameJunkie]

I liked the sisters in the video. They seemed very intelligent and dedicated.

[readstoomuch]

Fantastic. These sisters are bringing such a wonderful spirit to the work.!

[Ham Clam]

Great clip.

I was nineteen when they announced the age change. After that year in college (in Missouri), my roommate just when off and left me.

I don't think I can get it together to go on a mission myself, but I'm so grateful my generation were the first to go out at the early age.

[VideoGameJunkie]

I still don't know why women can't go at age 18 as well. I mean, they're definitely as mature as men if not more, so why do they have to wait one extra year? I think both men and women should be able to serve at age 18.

[Duncan]

something I wish for sisters is to maybe change the time they are out to 21 months instead of 18, I just think sisters are just wonderful at being a missionary and who knows 24 months would be good too!

[juliann]

I have mixed feelings about the video. As usual, it was all about what women wear. The question about underwear was tasteless and inappropriate.  They made it seem as if women were being put out as bait.  I am glad to see that they are allowed to wear normal clothing though. They used to look like grim reapers.

[Buckeye]

I still don't know why women can't go at age 18 as well. I mean, they're definitely as mature as men if not more, so why do they have to wait one extra year? I think both men and women should be able to serve at age 18.

 

The most definitive statement is still President Hinckley's 1997 address (quoted below). In short, the 18 vs 19 year old, and 2 year vs. 1.5 year service length restrictions are in place to ensure that more men serve so that missionary work remains primarily a priesthood work.

 

 

 

Now I wish to say something to bishops and stake presidents concerning missionary service. It is a sensitive matter. There seems to be growing in the Church an idea that all young women as well as all young men should go on missions. We need some young women. They perform a remarkable work. They can get in homes where the elders cannot.

I confess that I have two granddaughters on missions. They are bright and beautiful young women. They are working hard and accomplishing much good. Speaking with their bishops and their parents, they made their own decisions to go. They did not tell me until they turned their papers in. I had nothing to do with their decision to go.

 

Now, having made that confession, I wish to say that the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve are united in saying to our young sisters that they are not under obligation to go on missions. I hope I can say what I have to say in a way that will not be offensive to anyone. Young women should not feel that they have a duty comparable to that of young men. Some of them will very much wish to go. If so, they should counsel with their bishop as well as their parents. If the idea persists, the bishop will know what to do.

 

I say what has been said before, that missionary work is essentially a priesthood responsibility. As such, our young men must carry the major burden. This is their responsibility and their obligation.

 

We do not ask the young women to consider a mission as an essential part of their life’s program. Over a period of many years, we have held the age level higher for them in an effort to keep the number going relatively small. Again to the sisters I say that you will be as highly respected, you will be considered as being as much in the line of duty, your efforts will be as acceptable to the Lord and to the Church whether you go on a mission or do not go on a mission.

 

We constantly receive letters from young women asking why the age for sister missionaries is not the same as it is for elders. We simply give them the reasons. We know that they are disappointed. We know that many have set their hearts on missions. We know that many of them wish this experience before they marry and go forward with their adult lives. I certainly do not wish to say or imply that their services are not wanted. I simply say that a mission is not necessary as a part of their lives.

 

Now, that may appear to be something of a strange thing to say in priesthood meeting. I say it here because I do not know where else to say it. The bishops and stake presidents of the Church have now heard it. And they must be the ones who make the judgment in this matter.

 

That is enough on that subject.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1997/10/some-thoughts-on-temples-retention-of-converts-and-missionary-service?lang=eng

[pogi]

I have mixed feelings about the video. As usual, it was all about what women wear. The question about underwear was tasteless and inappropriate.  They made it seem as if women were being put out as bait.  I am glad to see that they are allowed to wear normal clothing though. They used to look like grim reapers.

 

To be fair to the clip, it was entitled "The New Face of Mormonism".  It was about the superficial image (not the soul) that we present to the world.  It was all about our presentation in form of gender and dress (they also covered male missionary attire).  I don't see anything particularly wrong with that.  

 

I don't know if I would use the word bait, but ya.  The reason that missionaries have specific dress and grooming standards is purely for image.  The sisters are even being taught to dress "colorful and attractive."  

[carbon dioxide]

I still don't know why women can't go at age 18 as well. I mean, they're definitely as mature as men if not more, so why do they have to wait one extra year? I think both men and women should be able to serve at age 18.

I think the missions have enough missionaries to deal with at the moment.  Perhaps in time they will lower it to 18 and raise the term to 24 months.

[carbon dioxide]

Perhaps one day there will be missionary drones walking around.  Missionaries guiding their drones to teach people in the comfort of their apartment.

[Antoni]

Thanks for posting this.

 

The sisters faith and light of Christ was contagious.

 

We've had several sister missionaries serve in our ward, but for the last few months we've only had males. Whislt the males are and have been great. It gave a good dynamic to our ward having a combination of both. We pray we'll get some sisters in the next transfer

[bluebell]

The most definitive statement is still President Hinckley's 1997 address (quoted below). In short, the 18 vs 19 year old, and 2 year vs. 1.5 year service length restrictions are in place to ensure that more men serve so that missionary work remains primarily a priesthood work.

 

I can appreciate what Pres. Hinckley said.  At the same time, it was no doubt divine intervention that I had not heard of this quote until today.  I served a mission in the spring of 1998, but i did NOT want to serve a mission.  Don't get me wrong, i absolutely loved my mission experience and when i left i was excited to serve.  However, I only went on a mission because thru pray and revelation i knew that that's where God wanted me to be.

 

The church might not have felt i had an obligation to go but I  know that, for me personally, that is exactly what Heavenly Father expected of me.  If there had been any way for me to have discounted the inspiration i had received and not felt like i needed to go I would have jumped onto that with both hands.  

 

I have no doubt that the church still views serving a mission as primarily a priesthood responsibility but it seems like, with the change in age for the sisters as well, the church also recognizes the great blessings that come from serving a mission.  It seems like they are interested in the sisters having a greater chance of experiencing those if that's what they desire than they were before. 

[stemelbow]

It seems to me the Church is moving away from missionary work is a priesthood work. That's cool and change if always around the corner. Yesterday's comments from leaders soon gets forgotten and we move on to other things.

[Buckeye]

I can appreciate what Pres. Hinckley said.  At the same time, it was no doubt divine intervention that I had not heard of this quote until today.  I served a mission in the spring of 1998, but i did NOT want to serve a mission.  Don't get me wrong, i absolutely loved my mission experience and when i left i was excited to serve.  However, I only went on a mission because thru pray and revelation i knew that that's where God wanted me to be.

 

The church might not have felt i had an obligation to go but I  know that, for me personally, that is exactly what Heavenly Father expected of me.  If there had been any way for me to have discounted the inspiration i had received and not felt like i needed to go I would have jumped onto that with both hands.  

 

I have no doubt that the church still views serving a mission as primarily a priesthood responsibility but it seems like, with the change in age for the sisters as well, the church also recognizes the great blessings that come from serving a mission.  It seems like they are interested in the sisters having a greater chance of experiencing those if that's what they desire than they were before. 

 

The address was given in the priesthood session so it's no surprise you did not hear it.

 

There are scripture passages that teach missionary work as a priesthood duty. There are also passages that teach the duty to apply to non-priesthood holders - anyone who has desires to serve is called. (See D/C 4).  I have no doubt that your feeling of obligation was just a legitimate as any Elder's.

 

I also agree that the age change is more about helping more youth stay active - both YW and YM. There will still be the teaching that YM have a special obligation to serve because of the priesthood, but I doubt you'll see many bishops/stake presidents actively discouraging YW today as was the case in some places in the past. Some leaders took President Hinckley's counsel "If the idea persists, the bishop will know what to do" as an instruction to delay or discourage sister missionaries. I don't see anything like that in my stake today.

 

It will be interesting to see what happens if the % of YW serving approaches the % of YM. Because sisters only serve for 18 months, its possible to have well over 50% of missionaries called be sisters and still have over 50% of the missionaries serving be Elders - thus maintaining President Hinckley's instruction that Elder carry the "major burden."

[KevinG]

I've long has a suspicion that the non-doctrinal but practical reality of calling Sisters who were older than the Elders, really cut down on fraternization.  

 

That's just my pet theory.  But it makes as much sense as any I've heard.  

 

Ultimately it is a policy decision not doctrinal, so it doesn't rattle my cage either way.

[bluebell]

I've long has a suspicion that the non-doctrinal but practical reality of calling Sisters who were older than the Elders, really cut down on fraternization.  

 

That's just my pet theory.  But it makes as much sense as any I've heard.  

 

Ultimately it is a policy decision not doctrinal, so it doesn't rattle my cage either way.

 

I agree.  In fact, i've heard from sisters serving that one of the biggest problems that new sisters have is that they are too flirtatious with the elders.  That happened a little bit on my mission but for the most part sisters saw the elders as younger brothers and that helped keep interaction fun, appropriate, and void of drama.

[stemelbow]

I've long has a suspicion that the non-doctrinal but practical reality of calling Sisters who were older than the Elders, really cut down on fraternization.  

 

That's just my pet theory.  But it makes as much sense as any I've heard.  

 

Ultimately it is a policy decision not doctrinal, so it doesn't rattle my cage either way.

That could be it. But we've all heard of and perhaps been a part of enough fraternization that one wonders how an age difference of two years, or one year now, matters.

[Scott Lloyd]

I still don't know why women can't go at age 18 as well. I mean, they're definitely as mature as men if not more, so why do they have to wait one extra year? I think both men and women should be able to serve at age 18.

"One miracle at a time."  -- Elder Jeffrey R. Holland