Popular Post cinepro Posted August 22, 2018 Popular Post Posted August 22, 2018 The current issue of the New Era has an interesting and, as far as I know, unprecedented article. It is an article explaining to young women that are thinking of serving a mission how to know if they are being inspired not to serve a mission. Sister To Sister Quote I wanted a mission to be right for me. I prayed. I talked to my bishop. I counseled with my parents. I read my scriptures. I received a father’s blessing. But I continued to feel anxious and overwhelmed about serving a mission. It wasn’t until I finally made the decision not to serve a mission that I found the peaceful feeling I had been searching for. So the obvious question is why this article is only "Sister to Sister"? Is it impossible for young men to also have the same questions and answers? 5
Popular Post CV75 Posted August 22, 2018 Popular Post Posted August 22, 2018 52 minutes ago, cinepro said: The current issue of the New Era has an interesting and, as far as I know, unprecedented article. It is an article explaining to young women that are thinking of serving a mission how to know if they are being inspired not to serve a mission. Sister To Sister So the obvious question is why this article is only "Sister to Sister"? Is it impossible for young men to also have the same questions and answers? Only the New Era can explain that editorial decision, which probably has much to do with an unfortunate problem that has been identified (faddish pressure as opposed to divine commandment or invitation). In contrast to this article’s subhead, a mission for a young man is inherent in his priesthood duty. There are individual reasons why a young man would be excused from that obligation, and certainly rationale for his choosing not to go even if he was called, but in general all young men are called to serve from a young age. So while I think it is possible for a young man to have the same questions and pressures to go on a mission, and the counsel at the end of the article applies to them as well as young women, they are brought up in the Church to associate this anticipated call with honoring their priesthood responsibilities. This is a facet of experience young women do not have in common with them. 6
Tacenda Posted August 22, 2018 Posted August 22, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, cinepro said: The current issue of the New Era has an interesting and, as far as I know, unprecedented article. It is an article explaining to young women that are thinking of serving a mission how to know if they are being inspired not to serve a mission. Sister To Sister So the obvious question is why this article is only "Sister to Sister"? Is it impossible for young men to also have the same questions and answers? Because we have past prophets that said it was the young man's duty, but the young woman's choice. But I know young women, for instance my good friend's daughter, that felt pressure to go, but didn't feel it was a good choice for herself and now recently got married. Edited August 22, 2018 by Tacenda
theplains Posted August 22, 2018 Posted August 22, 2018 51 minutes ago, CV75 said: So while I think it is possible for a young man to have the same questions and pressures to go on a mission, and the counsel at the end of the article applies to them as well as young women, they are brought up in the Church to associate this anticipated call with honoring their priesthood responsibilities. This is a facet of experience young women do not have in common with them. Unless you believe Jesus also gave women authority to go and make disciples. Jim 1
BlueDreams Posted August 22, 2018 Posted August 22, 2018 55 minutes ago, CV75 said: Only the New Era can explain that editorial decision, which probably has much to do with an unfortunate problem that has been identified (faddish pressure as opposed to divine commandment or invitation). In contrast to this article’s subhead, a mission for a young man is inherent in his priesthood duty. There are individual reasons why a young man would be excused from that obligation, and certainly rationale for his choosing not to go even if he was called, but in general all young men are called to serve from a young age. So while I think it is possible for a young man to have the same questions and pressures to go on a mission, and the counsel at the end of the article applies to them as well as young women, they are brought up in the Church to associate this anticipated call with honoring their priesthood responsibilities. This is a facet of experience young women do not have in common with them. I've always been a little curious about this....where does this assumption of difference come from originally? Would you happen to know? With luv, BD
Calm Posted August 22, 2018 Posted August 22, 2018 (edited) Back in the late 70s when I was at BYU, it had already shifted for women to go on missions because they wanted to instead of just filling time before they got married (they hoped) having reached graduation or whatever deadline they had created to get engaged. But the way it was talked about, it sounded like the shift had been pretty recent. And it was always pushed then that a woman's responsibility was primarily towards getting married and having kids, going on a mission if you were inspired to, sure, but default was school and marriage when it interrupted school (finishing one's degree when it fit around the kids). If a woman was planning on going on a mission and canceled last minute to get engaged and get married, that was cause for celebration. If that happened to a man, it was a dissapointment and I suspect there would be an assumption of morality issue. I remember Pres. Kimball being big on every worthy young man needed to go, but don't know if previous presidents pushed the same. It was no big deal for my dad not to go (born in 1930) though his older brother did. https://www.lds.org/new-era/1981/05/president-kimball-speaks-out-on-being-a-missionary?lang=eng Quote I was asked a few years ago, “Should every young man who is a member of the Church fill a mission?” And I responded with the answer the Lord has given: “Yes, every worthy young man should fill a mission.” The Lord expects it of him. And if he is not now worthy to fill a mission, then he should start at once to qualify himself. The Lord has instructed, “Send forth the elders of my church unto the nations which are afar off; unto the islands of the sea; send forth unto foreign lands; call upon all nations, first upon the Gentiles, and them upon the Jews.” (D&C 133:8).... Someone might also ask, “Should every young woman, should every father and mother, should every member of the Church serve a mission?” Again, the Lord has given the answer: Yes, every man, woman, and child—every young person and every little boy and girl—should serve a mission. This does not mean that they must serve abroad or even be formally called and set apart as full-time missionaries. But it does mean that each of us is responsible to bear witness of the gospel truths that we have been given. We all have relatives, neighbors, friends, and fellow workmen, and it is our responsibility to pass the truths of the gospel on to them, by example as well as by precept. Edited August 22, 2018 by Calm 3
Calm Posted August 22, 2018 Posted August 22, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, cinepro said: The current issue of the New Era has an interesting and, as far as I know, unprecedented article. It is an article explaining to young women that are thinking of serving a mission how to know if they are being inspired not to serve a mission. Sister To Sister So the obvious question is why this article is only "Sister to Sister"? Is it impossible for young men to also have the same questions and answers? I don't see it as unprecedented. I don't know if there was anything official, but I remember in my extended group at BYU there being women struggling to know if they should go or not and getting counsel to pray about by leaders. Their desire was taken seriously, but missions were not expected so of course one would pray about it just as one would pray about other choices such as marriage to a particular person, what school to go to, what degree to seek. Another recent article in the Ensign: https://www.lds.org/ensign/2017/04/young-adults/young-women-mission-or-not?lang=eng Example of prayer answer not to go: https://www.lds.org/ensign/2017/04/young-adults/young-women-mission-or-not/an-answer-that-was-hard-to-accept?lang=eng More examples from 2013: https://www.lds.org/ensign/2013/01/young-women-and-the-mission-decision?lang=eng Edited August 22, 2018 by Calm 3
clarkgoble Posted August 22, 2018 Posted August 22, 2018 I suspect part of the difference was sexist, some clearly came from Pres. Kimball's directive that every worthy man should serve a mission but not an accompanying directive for women, and some just from the age difference. When men went at 19 and women at 21 there was inherently a perception of difference - along with a lot of unfortunate sexist baggage. (i.e. the horrible perception that you went on a mission if you couldn't get married) Coming from the school of thought that not everyone should go on a mission, I have a slightly different perspective. I think our mission would have been tons better if many bad apples who clearly didn't want to be on a mission weren't on a mission. Pres. Hinkley's attempt to tighten restrictions helped, but then you had the perception that if you didn't go it was because you were a bad sinner. A very counterproductive consequence - not to mention that there were some great missionaries in my mission who had been wild as teens and fundamentally changed. This wasn't the "party, repent then go on a mission" excesses that Pres. Hinkley was trying to combat. The traditional problem is that of course a lot of people gain their testimonies in the MTC or in the field. Those people might never have gone on a mission and had those experiences had there not been some pressure to go. It's a really difficult balancing act. You don't want non-missionariest to be treated as second class citizens which has the incentive of pushing them away from the Church. Yet you also don't want to have no responsibility for a mission. As for women, I kind of wish there were more expectation for those able to go. 3
Calm Posted August 22, 2018 Posted August 22, 2018 From 1975: https://www.lds.org/ensign/1975/04/i-have-a-question/what-is-the-position-of-the-church-concerning-girls-going-on-missions?lang=eng Quote We recognize, of course, that many fine sisters have served and are currently serving full-time missions, and are performing an outstanding labor. We might also add that there is a need for a limited number of sisters in the missions of the Church. If a sister is (1) at least 21 years of age, (2) has good physical health, (3) is emotionally stable and secure, (4) has no immediate prospects for marriage, and (5) meets the other requirements for missionary service, she may be recommended for a mission. Bishops should be certain that each of these five prerequisites has been met before submitting recommendations for sisters to serve full-time missions. We are happy to accept sisters who meet these qualifications and afford them the opportunity to serve in the marvelous missionary cause. However, this is not their prime calling, and we don’t send out an appeal to young women generally to prepare for and serve full-time missions. 1
Gray Posted August 22, 2018 Posted August 22, 2018 2 hours ago, cinepro said: But I continued to feel anxious and overwhelmed about serving a mission. It wasn’t until I finally made the decision not to serve a mission that I found the peaceful feeling I had been searching for. Something tells me this method could help a majority of prospective missionaries get a revelation that the mission wasn't for them. This sounds a lot like me at 19 (I eventually did go though). 1
CV75 Posted August 22, 2018 Posted August 22, 2018 1 hour ago, theplains said: Unless you believe Jesus also gave women authority to go and make disciples. Jim I do, but that's not the same thing. 1 hour ago, BlueDreams said: I've always been a little curious about this....where does this assumption of difference come from originally? Would you happen to know? With luv, BD I think the assumption is that young men and young women are the same in all covenants and ordinances, with just one exception (ordination to priesthood office). I think that forms the basis for this article being geared toward the questions young women might have about serving a mission. The conferral of priesthood power, authority and order come to both young men and young women in the same way, with the exception of men additionally needing the laying on of hands before ordination to office (both men and women need laying on of hands under priesthood authority to exercise any other delegated authority). It could be said that "faith in it" and the resulting righteousness and grace are what constitute priesthood "power" for both young women and young men; priesthood and moral authority require the same level of righteousness for both young men and young women; and priesthood order comes by virtue of being sealed, whether by birth, adoption or to a spouse (for those who qualify for temple marriage). 1
SouthernMo Posted August 22, 2018 Posted August 22, 2018 2 hours ago, CV75 said: In contrast to this article’s subhead, a mission for a young man is inherent in his priesthood duty. This is not true. Young men serving missions is a long-standing Church policy, not part of his priesthood duty. We teach incorrect principles of what the priesthood is when we connect it to policy that clearly changes. 2
Calm Posted August 22, 2018 Posted August 22, 2018 1 minute ago, SouthernMo said: This is not true. Young men serving missions is a long-standing Church policy, not part of his priesthood duty. We teach incorrect principles of what the priesthood is when we connect it to policy that clearly changes. It is taught as a Priesthood duty: https://www.lds.org/youth/video/a-priesthood-duty?lang=eng 1
SouthernMo Posted August 22, 2018 Posted August 22, 2018 4 minutes ago, Calm said: It is taught as a Priesthood duty: https://www.lds.org/youth/video/a-priesthood-duty?lang=eng Maybe I'm just feeling smug right now, but isn't it ironic that of all the priesthood leaders to teach that going on a mission is a duty is the president who didn't serve a full-time mission as a young man? I don't condemn him in the least for not serving. But to claim that Jesus Christ's eternal priesthood, which is used to create worlds, raise the dead, heal the sick, perform miracles also has a duty attached to it that requires a man serve a full-time mission as a youth is something I don't believe. It's a policy, not a priesthood duty. That policy has changed in the past, and it may change again.
Tacenda Posted August 22, 2018 Posted August 22, 2018 (edited) 24 minutes ago, Calm said: It is taught as a Priesthood duty: https://www.lds.org/youth/video/a-priesthood-duty?lang=eng https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_S._Monson Pres. Monson did not serve a mission, but did serve a short stint in the military and then chose to marry at the age of 21. I'm sure he regretted not going though. Edited August 22, 2018 by Tacenda
Jeanne Posted August 22, 2018 Posted August 22, 2018 (edited) Call me a funny old lady...but the way it comes out is that a Sister makes a choice...but her going is not necessary. Then again, I would feel better if all this applied to young men as well. What young woman wants to go even though it is unnecessary. Edited August 22, 2018 by Jeanne
bluebell Posted August 22, 2018 Posted August 22, 2018 4 hours ago, cinepro said: The current issue of the New Era has an interesting and, as far as I know, unprecedented article. It is an article explaining to young women that are thinking of serving a mission how to know if they are being inspired not to serve a mission. Sister To Sister So the obvious question is why this article is only "Sister to Sister"? Is it impossible for young men to also have the same questions and answers? From the church's perspective, all young men who are able to go have a duty to serve a mission. The same is not true for young women. That's probably the obvious answer to that obvious question. 1
bluebell Posted August 22, 2018 Posted August 22, 2018 17 minutes ago, Tacenda said: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_S._Monson Pres. Monson did not serve a mission, but did serve a short stint in the military and then chose to marry at the age of 21. I'm sure he regretted not going though. After he got home from the navy, I think he was still in the reserves until he was 25 or 26. He could not have served during that time. 1
hope_for_things Posted August 23, 2018 Posted August 23, 2018 5 hours ago, cinepro said: The current issue of the New Era has an interesting and, as far as I know, unprecedented article. It is an article explaining to young women that are thinking of serving a mission how to know if they are being inspired not to serve a mission. Sister To Sister So the obvious question is why this article is only "Sister to Sister"? Is it impossible for young men to also have the same questions and answers? Thanks for sharing. I like how candid the story is about a person exploring this big decision. It certainly should apply to men as well, but I don’t think the culture is mature enough for that step. Men like rites of passage too much, and the church as an institution can’t afford to back away from it because getting people on missions is a retention tool and a conversion tool at the same time. Its different for girls because of the message of motherhood the church is trying to reinforce and that prioitization for women helps to keep patriarchy going. 2
carbon dioxide Posted August 23, 2018 Posted August 23, 2018 I only want my son to go on a mission if he wants to go or that he believes that it is right to go. I don't want him to be pressured into going or even being told it is his duty to go. Those missionaries tend to have more problems and not work as hard. Whatever my son decides I will support 100% and not consider him even 1% less because he did not go. 2
Rain Posted August 23, 2018 Posted August 23, 2018 1 hour ago, Jeanne said: Call me a funny old lady...but the way it comes out is that a Sister makes a choice...but her going is not necessary. Then again, I would feel better if all this applied to young men as well. What young woman wants to go even though it is unnecessary. My ward usually has sisters in it. Most of them, like me, wanted to go when it wasn't necessary. We have and had a desire to share what has brought peace and joy to us. 1
Jeanne Posted August 23, 2018 Posted August 23, 2018 9 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said: I only want my son to go on a mission if he wants to go or that he believes that it is right to go. I don't want him to be pressured into going or even being told it is his duty to go. Those missionaries tend to have more problems and not work as hard. Whatever my son decides I will support 100% and not consider him even 1% less because he did not go. Oh Happy Day!! This thinking will make you a hero in your children's eyes. Love and support..!
Jeanne Posted August 23, 2018 Posted August 23, 2018 Just now, Rain said: My ward usually has sisters in it. Most of them, like me, wanted to go when it wasn't necessary. We have and had a desire to share what has brought peace and joy to us. I understand that...and that is probably why you were a real good missionary. You wanted to go.
Rain Posted August 23, 2018 Posted August 23, 2018 Thank you for sending the article cinepro. My daughter has considered going off and on since the announcement. She has felt pressure from some. At this point she feels a mission is not for her, but recognizes that could change. 1
Tacenda Posted August 23, 2018 Posted August 23, 2018 55 minutes ago, bluebell said: After he got home from the navy, I think he was still in the reserves until he was 25 or 26. He could not have served during that time. "In 1945, Monson joined the United States Naval Reserve and anticipated participating in World War II in the Pacific theater.[1] He was sent to San Diego, California, for training, but was not stationed overseas before the end of the war. His tour of duty lasted six months beyond the end of the war, then he returned to the University of Utah. Monson graduated cum laude in 1948 with a bachelor's degreein business management.[13] Monson did not serve a mission as a youth. At age 21, on October 7, 1948, he married Frances Beverly Johnson in the Salt Lake Temple.[14] The couple eventually had three children: Thomas Lee, Ann Frances, and Clark Spencer. After college he rejoined the Naval Reserve with the aim of becoming an officer. Shortly after receiving his commission acceptance letter, his local bishop asked him to serve as a counselor in the bishopric.[14] Time conflicts with bishopric meetings would have made Navy service impossible. After discussion with church apostle Harold B. Lee (his former stake president), Monson declined the commission and applied for a discharge. The Navy granted his discharge in the last group processed before the Korean War.[15] Lee set him apart six months later as a bishop—mentioning in the blessing that he likely would not have been called if he had accepted the commission.[16][15]" Me: There was a window of time that he could have served a mission. The war ended in 1945 and he served six months more. So he would have been around 18 or 19. He returned to the U of U, and then married at age 21.
Recommended Posts