kids on missions spin-off

[RedHeadGal]

So I glanced at the thread on how you encourage or respond to children going on missions. My question is this: do you think viewpoints (as taught on GC or otherwise) on sending out missionaries have changed much over time? I know originally they were adult me, mostly married, etc. But say in the last 80 years? Do you think there is a different expectation for a boy growing up in the church with respect to expected missionary service when he's old enough than there was before?

And is it different for women? What's the story on why boys and "expected" and girls are "free to choose"? Has it changed for girls?

I vaguely recall growing up thinking only ugly girls went on missions because all the good ones were married by 21. (I'm talking about as a young girl there). That view is obviously total nonsense. As I grew into my teenage years, I remember really wanting to and expecting to serve a mission, but although I wasn't married at 21, I ultimately chose not to. And of course, no one cared either way. I guess I count myself lucky as being free from the pressure to choose one way, but if missions are so great, why don't we push young women to push themselves.

I guess this is multiple questions.

[Flystripper]

Why aren't young women encouraged to serve missions in the same way that the church "encourages" young men?

Answer: sexism pure and simple

Probably the answer you were looking for, and I took the bait. You're welcome. You can call me german brown trout.

[beelzebabette]

I ended up not going for reasons completely irrelevant to this conversation. I was about twenty-eight when in a TR interview with a member of the stake presidency who told me he encourages his sons not to consider marrying a woman who didn't go on a mission.

Look how I turned out. Maybe he's onto something.

[RedHeadGal]

Well, sex discrimination is a baseline, but that's really not an answer. I'm not looking to provoke admissions of this fact, as it's simply a given.

And assuming there are some among us who don't want to perpetuate the discrimination any more than we have to, should these people go ahead and "encourage" their duaghters the way they do their sons.

[RC Vikings]

Originally Posted by Flystripper

Why aren't young women encouraged to serve missions in the same way that the church "encourages" young men?

ZL's wouldn't have enough time to keep them all from killing each other.

[RedHeadGal]

Originally Posted by beelzebabette

I ended up not going for reasons completely irrelevant to this conversation. I was about twenty-eight when in a TR interview with a member of the stake presidency who told me he encourages his sons not to consider marrying a woman who didn't go on a mission.

Look how I turned out. Maybe he's onto something.

well, I don't know how you turned out, but it sounds juicy.

And I guess the interviewer makes a good point, but it certainly sets a higher standard for women, since they can take it or leave it with impunity.

[smokymountainrain]

Originally Posted by RedHeadGal

Well, sex discrimination is a baseline, but that's really not an answer. I'm not looking to provoke admissions of this fact, as it's simply a given.

So if I encourage my son to go, but not my daughter, mainly due to concerns about her safety, am I discriminating against the boy or am I discriminating against the girl?

[Goatnapper'96]

Originally Posted by RedHeadGal

Well, sex discrimination is a baseline, but that's really not an answer. I'm not looking to provoke admissions of this fact, as it's simply a given.

And assuming there are some among us who don't want to perpetuate the discrimination any more than we have to, should these people go ahead and "encourage" their duaghters the way they do their sons.

Every culture on the face of the earth has coming of age expectations for its young men. Mission service is that for the mormon culture. Native Americans tie their young men to ant piles or send them to Eagle's nests to get an egg, mormons send theirs recruiting via door knocking to the four corners of the world.

I think it is emphasized for men because it is not about recruiting new members as much as it is about developing future leadership. Men get the preponderance of the leadership positions in the LDS system.

I would like my daughters to serve missions. I met my wife when we were both missionaries and I think it is every bit as good an experience for the cistern as the brethren.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by beelzebabette

I ended up not going for reasons completely irrelevant to this conversation. I was about twenty-eight when in a TR interview with a member of the stake presidency who told me he encourages his sons not to consider marrying a woman who didn't go on a mission.

Look how I turned out. Maybe he's onto something.

A pretty reckless and thoughtless comment by your stake presidency member.

Men are encouraged ... nay, commanded ... to go because it's part of a priesthood responsibility to preach the gospel. Women are not under the same commandment because they do not hold the priesthood.

We can open up a fresh discussion on whether gender-based priesthood restrictions are sexist, but the call to serve is just a subsection of that concept.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by RedHeadGal

I vaguely recall growing up thinking only ugly girls went on missions because all the good ones were married by 21. (I'm talking about as a young girl there). That view is obviously total nonsense.

Sure it is. Total nonsense. No validity to that at all.

Ugly girls choose to serve missions solely out of a desire to serve. If presented the opportunity to get married to someone they really dug, I am sure these same ugly sisters would pass because they want to go on a mission.