tcage

I don't think I have EVER been in a ward with 100 active adults 😆 Even counting kids Im not sure tbh the problem I see with this is if wards grow too geographically big, it will deter people from going, either thru barriers (winter in Canada, lack of public transport) or apathy. Some People here already drive 45-90 mins to attend a unit, will they drive HOURS each way every Sunday?

You are right, it's not the moral equivalent. Breaking the LoC is a choice someone makes, not serving a mission is for the most part not a choice (especially when you apply and are rejected medically, but are still considered "unworthy"). It doesn't matter if a prophet hasn't specifically said it, it has been implied ("all worthy young men should serve missions", the ensigns and conf talks that all end with "and so and so ended up marrying a return missionary"), it is regularly preached in YW and YSA.... why is it okay, but yet not okay for someone to desire a spouse equally yoked with them sexually? Again, not saying they should....just they aren't "lesser in worthiness" if they have that standard. For me, the Law of Chastity goes well beyond "cause Jesus said so" (well before I was even a member), and maybe this is triggering me a little because when you are older in the church you are told you can't have these things anymore....

Why? Why is it okay......nay ENCOURAGED for girls to make marrying an RM a requirement, but wrong and evil for someone to make not breaking the LoC? I'm not saying someone should make that a requirement, that's really up to the individual and God, but there's a clear double-standard in the church when it comes to the marriage decision.

An interesting corollary study would be those that didn't get to serve missions at all I think you'd come up with many of the same findings and church stigmas.....

How? Lots of people say that (usually married people), or quote feel-good quotations about it....but nobody can explain it. As someone who will likely never have the opportunity to get married as long as I continue to hold out for a Temple marriage (and who doesn't see the odds the fleeting hearts of lds women will miraculously change in the next life allowing opportunities to guys that don't exist in this life as very strong), It's always bothered me this notion that I could be denied in the next life because of a choice someone else makes. It doesn't jive at all with the rest of the Doctrine (that God will judge man according to their works and the desires of their hearts.....). Just "desiring it" is not enough.....at least not according to DC 132 Sorry Thrushcross for the semi-threadjack, but reading this thread triggered the only dark feelings i have for in an otherwise-lightfilled Gospel...

I agree. Though it does beg the question of why.... I'v wondered why the Church allows men to be sealed to multiple women.......if marriage is indeed "required" for exaltation, this seems to put single men at an even larger disadvantage if married men can start a harem. The math just doesn't add up..

I love when people pull out that one. One of my guilty pleasures is picking apart the "pamphlet arguments" (named so b/c Baptists and Catholics actually have pamphlets entitled 'How to Talk to Mormons') that mainstream Christians rely on rather than doing their own research

First off 47% of 79 would be 37.1, not 32.... To be honest, I didn't look up the hard math because I wasn't prepared to write a sociology paper tonight or anything (tho I have in the past on life expectancy and marriage patterns), merely to make a point. I do know the life expectancy in Canada is approx. 81, so I used "close to 80" as it would be an educated estimate (LE for males tends to be a tad lower, plus i'm also assuming it is a little lower for Americans) I also know 50-60 is an approximation for the mid-1800s, which obviously records are spotty for (and would have a lot of outliers, making it harder to make a "fair" estimate). So I stand by my comments. Not at all. I have no quibbles for or against your point. I was speaking to the infamous "menace to society" quote that was contained in your reference. It's long been a bane of contention for me in the church (and the broader issue of the perception of single males in society in general)

Of course, life expectancy in BY's time was only about 50-60years. (Probably less among LDS males cause of the rigors of moving and living in the unincorporated West, and the Americans constantly trying to exterminate them), so a 25yr old man had already hit "middle-age" To put that in today's context, a man wouldn't be a "menace" until he's over 40 (considering life expectancy of close to 80). To tout Pres. Young's statement today put an unfair label on single men

You are caught between a rock and a hard place, or between 2 Gospel principles really.... If you know the Truth, then it is imparative to be baptized in His name, but on the other hand there is also that oft-neglected "Honour thy Mother and Father" that most sadly think only applys if the mother and father are LDS.... Keeping praying about it is the best advice I could give. There is "middle ground" in there, but the Lord is the best one to lead you and your folks to that compromise. Leaning to either extreme (either staying non-baptized cause you need the free money, or taking the stance of "I'm getting baptized and i don't care what you think about it") is asking for unnecessary headache. ((I would say, however, to plan for the extreme. IF your parents do cut you off, there are many "Plan B"s.......deferring school for a year to raise your own money, attending part-time, doing the work and school mix, even going to your Bishop for help if needed. Just because the Lord will guide us doesn't mean we shouldn't do our due dilligence in our lives))

((On the positive side though, LOVE the other half of the announcement though. Lowering the sister missionary age was LONG overdue, and I'm excited that more women in the church will serve missions! And greatly improve the mission force imo...))

I hope to...I REALLY hope to..though that is another "locked-out" area for guys...... you can only serve a senior mission if you are married (unless this has changed, but i have heard nothing of it). That is hard when the leaders tell women that RMs are "more choice" husbands than those that didn't serve (either off-handed with statements like "no other experience will give you the spiritual growth that a mission does", or YW leaders just outright teaching it). Likely I won't have the chance to serve a senior mission either. I'm now seeing this happen with men younger than me in the church who haven't had the chance to go yet, and I feel he rocky path they have ahead of them Especially since earlier missions will lower marriage ages, so the "spare parts" in the ward will stand out moreso. Even among boys that DO get to serve though....there always has been a "class distinction" between those that went right away at 19, and those who prepared a little longer (I've been a YSA leader for several years and a YM President currently, so you notice these things). I worry while Pres Monson did stress it was optional (that man is never off his A-game, love it), this will create yet another judgment for my Young Men, that those that waited until 19 aren't as "quality" as those that leave right from the graduation stage into a waiting plane This whole thing makes me feel terrible inside.....prob the first time i can say that walking out of a General Conference...

No problem...cause it was mine. I'm an adult convert (joined at 19 1/2), so I didn't have the advantage of preparing and saving for a mission like the born-members (nor do my parents have the means to support a missionary, not that I would ask that burden of them for somehing they didn't believe in anyways). I had wanted to go a few years back, and was even encouraged by several members (who had revealed to me in confidence that they had made large donations to the ward mission fund recently, so help was available). The response from my Bishop was "we have other potentials we are saving that money for. Maybe in the future, but you are on your own." It was very spirit crushing (more so when their "potentials" didn't end up going). Now I am in better financial and physical shape (I got sick shortly after).....but alas at 27 I have "aged out". that's the part that frustrates me about this whole thing today.... We want more born-in-the-church YM to serve missions, let's lower the age...... but older adult converts, you still are unwanted

Not true, unfortunately....