Male missionary cut-off age

[PortalToParis]

When did it become the rule that male proselytizing missionaries must be under a certain age? Originally there was no upper age limit, and sister missionaries have never had an upper age limit. Why not just get rid of it for men?

Also, why not allow people to serve more than one proselytizing mission if they have the money to, if they desire to, and if they have no conflicting obligations to any children/family?

[PortalToParis]

I also heard (it was about 12 years ago, maybe it's changed by now) that single men over the age of 27 aren't allowed to be temple workers. Why have such arbitrary rules for single people who are willing to serve?

[bluebell]

I've heard it's because they don't want single men that age out and in a position to attract marriage partners while serving, especially since single women often love the Elders and go out of their way to interact with them.  Elders have an aspect of authority that could make single sisters vulnerable to them in ways that you just don't see with single older sister missionaries.

I don't know if it's true but it makes some sense to me.

My grandmother served a senior mission in SLC at the family history center.  She met a single elderly man from canada who were there for a few weeks doing family history and soon they were an item and got married a couple days after she returned.  He was not exactly what he presented himself to be but my grandmother cared for him until his death a few years later.

I've since heard that they aren't letting the single elderly men do that anyone because too many of them were coming down to find wives.  I have no idea if it's true or not but I wish it had been when my grandmother was there.

 

[JAHS]

3 hours ago, PortalToParis said:

When did it become the rule that male proselytizing missionaries must be under a certain age? Originally there was no upper age limit, and sister missionaries have never had an upper age limit. Why not just get rid of it for men?

Also, why not allow people to serve more than one proselytizing mission if they have the money to, if they desire to, and if they have no conflicting obligations to any children/family?

I think part of it is because at that older age, or already having served a mission, they should have obligations to children/family. So they should be concentrating more on making that happen. 

[Rain]

3 hours ago, PortalToParis said:

When did it become the rule that male proselytizing missionaries must be under a certain age? Originally there was no upper age limit, and sister missionaries have never had an upper age limit. Why not just get rid of it for men?

Also, why not allow people to serve more than one proselytizing mission if they have the money to, if they desire to, and if they have no conflicting obligations to any children/family?

I don't know the answer s to your other questions, but women are able to serve more that one mission - at least they were 35 years ago when I went. A woman who had gone on 5 missions gave a talk to the sisters while I was there.

[Tacenda]

13 minutes ago, Rain said:

I don't know the answer s to your other questions, but women are able to serve more that one mission - at least they were 35 years ago when I went. A woman who had gone on 5 missions gave a talk to the sisters while I was there.

I've always wanted to do a humanitarian mission under the LDS hat. It would feel much more safe I think. Or in my mind it would. But probably won't get to unless I get a current temple recommend.

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, PortalToParis said:

I also heard (it was about 12 years ago, maybe it's changed by now) that single men over the age of 27 aren't allowed to be temple workers. Why have such arbitrary rules for single people who are willing to serve?

There used to be an age out at 31 and then it went up again. The limit is gone now. I have no idea if this change was to expand opportunities for single men or was a necessity due to a shortage of male temple workers.

[Raingirl]

5 hours ago, PortalToParis said:

I also heard (it was about 12 years ago, maybe it's changed by now) that single men over the age of 27 aren't allowed to be temple workers. Why have such arbitrary rules for single people who are willing to serve?

Why do think that they are arbitrary?

[Raingirl]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

I don't know the answer s to your other questions, but women are able to serve more that one mission - at least they were 35 years ago when I went. A woman who had gone on 5 missions gave a talk to the sisters while I was there.

I wonder if this was because the church thinks women are not marriage material after a certain age, while thinking that the men are always marriage material?

[PortalToParis]

3 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

Why do think that they are arbitrary?

My thinking was that if you have someone who is worthy to serve, is wanting to serve, has the capability and means to serve, and has no conflicting responsibilities to serving, then age would be an arbitrary reason to disallow someone from serving. D&C says if ye have desire ye are called to the work — not "until X age" or "unless you already did that a while ago".

I think it's also sad because you have so many men who say that their mission was the best years of their life, who have never been successful to marry who would probably love the chance to serve another mission, even for just shorter 12-month periods to relive that joy for themselves, but they are never, ever allowed to again. I don't know of any other churches who bar single men from volunteering for self-funded missions.

[Calm]

24 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

I wonder if this was because the church thinks women are not marriage material after a certain age, while thinking that the men are always marriage material?

My guess is it’s more most leaders don’t see women as likely to use such to manipulate men into marrying them.  You don’t typically hear of a woman telling a man they have had a revelation the man should marry them (though I have heard a number of women say they had that experience but they always kept it to themselves until much later in the relationship).  You also don’t hear much about sister missionaries that get entangled romantically with the locals, though I don’t know why it wouldn’t happen as frequently…unless women are less prone to break mission rules.  They are less prone to take risks, so that is likely in my view.

In our culture, is it still true that men are more likely to initiate dating, etc?  That might be a factor.  Leaders see men as the ones who initiate relationships much more often.

My husband and I took turns asking each other on dates as we were both highly insecure and we wouldn’t have made it past one date without a sign the other wanted it as well, lol.

Edited March 31, 2024 by Calm

[bluebell]

18 minutes ago, PortalToParis said:

My thinking was that if you have someone who is worthy to serve, is wanting to serve, has the capability and means to serve, and has no conflicting responsibilities to serving, then age would be an arbitrary reason to disallow someone from serving. D&C says if ye have desire ye are called to the work — not "until X age" or "unless you already did that a while ago".

I think it's also sad because you have so many men who say that their mission was the best years of their life, who have never been successful to marry who would probably love the chance to serve another mission, even for just shorter 12-month periods to relive that joy for themselves, but they are never, ever allowed to again. I don't know of any other churches who bar single men from volunteering for self-funded missions.

I've never actually known a man or woman who wanted to serve again after doing so once.  A senior mission sure, but not as a proselytizing mission again with an assigned companion, living in apartments with other missionaries, and all of that stuff.

I'm sure they are out there, I've just never met them.  I have met quite a few who have dreams about being back on the mission again, or having to go out again a second time, but are happy when they wake up. 

Missions are wonderful and amazing but they are really hard.  I wouldn't want to do another one except as a senior with the level of autonomy that comes with those types of missions.

 

[MustardSeed]

One of my husband’s bigger regrets in life was making the choice to stay out for 24 months when the rule changed from 18 to 24. He was the only missionary in his mission that made the choice to stay. it was the hardest six months of his life and eventually had an impact on his decision to leave the church. He returned to the church six years later.

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

One of my husband’s bigger regrets in life was making the choice to stay out for 24 months when the rule changed from 18 to 24. He was the only missionary in his mission that made the choice to stay. it was the hardest six months of his life and eventually had an impact on his decision to leave the church. He returned to the church six years later.

I don't remember men having the option of 18 months (probably too young for the information to have made an impact).  Do you have any idea how long that lasted?  I could look it up I'm sure.

[MustardSeed]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't remember men having the option of 18 months (probably too young for the information to have made an impact).  Do you have any idea how long that lasted?  I could look it up I'm sure.

82-85 I believe? 

[The Nehor]

39 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I've never actually known a man or woman who wanted to serve again after doing so once.  A senior mission sure, but not as a proselytizing mission again with an assigned companion, living in apartments with other missionaries, and all of that stuff.

This. in my final interview my Mission President asked if I would do this again. I said no. He said he wouldn’t have either after his mission in his youth. He commented that doing it once in ignorance works out but going out with a knowledge of what you are getting into………not so much.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Raingirl said:

I wonder if this was because the church thinks women are not marriage material after a certain age, while thinking that the men are always marriage material?

I think it is more that they don’t trust older single men in the mission field.

I can say that if the church were to start pulling 31+ single men from the Single Adults in Church to serve missions it probably wouldn’t go well.

[MustardSeed]

Just now, The Nehor said:

I think it is more that they don’t trust older single men in the mission field.

I can say that if the church were to start pulling 31+ single men from the Single Adults in Church to serve missions it probably wouldn’t go well.

They don’t even want GAs to remain single long after their wives die.  
 

Single men are just out of control. 

[Raingirl]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

My guess is it’s more most leaders don’t see women as likely to use such to manipulate men into marrying them.  You don’t typically hear of a woman telling a man they have had a revelation the man should marry them (though I have heard a number of women say they had that experience but they always kept it to themselves until much later in the relationship).  You also don’t hear much about sister missionaries that get entangled romantically with the locals, though I don’t know why it wouldn’t happen as frequently…unless women are less prone to break mission rules.  They are less prone to take risks, so that is likely in my view.

In our culture, is it still true that men are more likely to initiate dating, etc?  That might be a factor.  Leaders see men as the ones who initiate relationships much more often.

My husband and I took turns asking each other on dates as we were both highly insecure and we wouldn’t have made it past one date without a sign the other wanted it as well, lol.

If our leaders think women aren’t manipulative when it comes to dating, they’re living in a fantasy world.  
 

But they, like you and other long-married people, are generally clueless when it comes to the experiences of today’s single people in the church, especially ‘older’ single women. 

1 hour ago, PortalToParis said:

My thinking was that if you have someone who is worthy to serve, is wanting to serve, has the capability and means to serve, and has no conflicting responsibilities to serving, then age would be an arbitrary reason to disallow someone from serving. D&C says if ye have desire ye are called to the work — not "until X age" or "unless you already did that a while ago".

I think it's also sad because you have so many men who say that their mission was the best years of their life, who have never been successful to marry who would probably love the chance to serve another mission, even for just shorter 12-month periods to relive that joy for themselves, but they are never, ever allowed to again. I don't know of any other churches who bar single men from volunteering for self-funded missions.

Have you ever considered that the church actually has reasons for its policies? You seem to have just assumed that it’s all arbitrary, and have proceeded from there. You haven’t addressed the actual reasons. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I don't remember men having the option of 18 months (probably too young for the information to have made an impact).  Do you have any idea how long that lasted?  I could look it up I'm sure.

Just during the few years of transitioning iirc.

[Calm]

52 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

If our leaders think women aren’t manipulative when it comes to dating, they’re living in a fantasy world.  

They are often the same ones who have commented how much more spiritual/better/righteous/loving/whatever than men, so would it be that surprising if they did?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Raingirl said:

But they, like you and other long-married people, are generally clueless when it comes to the experiences of today’s single people in the church, especially ‘older’ single women. 

I am totally clueless…I was probably clueless back when I was dating, lol.  Family members never discussed dating.  Too many other things to debate and dissect.  Looking back, I am shocked at how little we talked about personal things given all the self analysis and analysis of each other we went through.  It was more therapy than around the table family chats, I guess, lol.  Jungian therapy, btw.  Not Freudian.  😛 

I had over all very little experience as I dated one guy more than once besides my husband and he was just someone to do things with, truly just a friend (I was idiot enough to think it was mostly that way for him too, I feel bad about that now though I was quite open about it…I think).  Three other guys I dated once.  One of which I wished it was more, but I had to go back to college and he did not.  Instead I had several guys just tell me they would like to marry me out of the blue.  Creepy.

I also wasn’t someone who would sit and talk about dating with girlfriends in my spare time.  I was either reading or talking math, science, horses, literature, or religion with my girlfriends and the occasional guy I was brave enough to speak to.  Obviously I am someone who spent most of my youth solitary.  I know it is likely hard to believe for many, but I talked very little in school and had few times I got together with anyone after school.  I understand I could be seen as intense if they happened to get me on a favorite topic though.

Edited March 31, 2024 by Calm

[The Nehor]

29 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

They don’t even want GAs to remain single long after their wives die.  
 

Single men are just out of control. 

"If you expel prostitution from society, you will unsettle everything on account of lusts" -Augustine

[Rain]

2 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

82-85 I believe? 

Yes. 

My BIL was out when it went from 24 to 18, didn’t get a choice to stay longer and was happy about it.  Another BIL was out when it went from 18-24, didn't get a choice and was also happy about it - though he was in south america for the first 18 and got very sick with parasites and the last 6 was in Texas where they knew how to treat him better than they did where he was from.

Edited March 31, 2024 by Rain

[PortalToParis]

2 hours ago, Raingirl said:

Have you ever considered that the church actually has reasons for its policies? You seem to have just assumed that it’s all arbitrary, and have proceeded from there. You haven’t addressed the actual reasons. 

*Sigh*

▪︎ Every policy in the world has a reason for its existence, whether it is a good reason or not. I am aware of such.

▪︎ Different people have different opinions on what is arbitrary reasoning and what is not.

▪︎ I am unaware of any stated reason the church has given for the policy that male missionaries must be under a certain age, and can only serve once

▪︎ I know that this policy was not in place initially in the church. I know that this rule is not listed in scripture. There isn't an explanation in the church handbook.

▪︎ Asking when this policy was put in place, which is the question asked, is a good question to ask because knowing the context in which a rule was put in place gives insight as to why it might have been implemented at that time, and sheds certain light as to whether it's reasoning that would hold water by modern standards. Worthy men missionaries used to be able to serve proselytizing missions regardless of age, and were able to serve more than one — several, if they wanted to. I'm glad to hear that single men of any age are now allowed to be temple workers.

Edited March 31, 2024 by PortalToParis
Added last two sentences to paragraph