What we teach our young women.(what we shouldnt)

[Backroads]

Here's another example. Having been a Scouter for years, one of my "qualifications" was an Eagle Scout. My husband has his Life. I sucked it up and married him anyways. To his credit, he always wishes he had gone further and practically forced his little brother to get his Eagle.

Why did I want an Eagle (and settle for someone who had still done very respectably in Scouting?) The Scouting values are important to me and I feel someone who has gone far in Scouting is likely to uphold those values. I think my husband upholds them despite not having his Eagle.

I'll compare this to a missionary. A girl might desire to marry a RM because she values certain things and believes a RM is likely to uphold those--by virtue of having gone on a mission. It's a fairly good sign. However, for whatever reason, a man did not go on a mission, but still upholds the aforementioned values. I think it would behoove a girl to consider that in a potential spouse.

[classylady]

Please don't ever tell your husband that.

I'm assuming you mean the part about if I had to do it over again? You're probably right. But, my husband knows how I feel. We're very open and candid in our conversations. And his lackadaisical attitude about the Gospel is not what would ever drive us apart, it's the baggage he brought into the marriage because of his past that is the most damaging.

[Misshalfway]

Because males hold the priesthood, and priesthood includes an obligation to do everything in your power to proclaim the Gospel. Women don't have to be formally pronounced clean from the blood and sins of this generation. Men do.

Hold the phone..... are you saying girl kinds don't have to be pronounced clean? Dude! Thanks for the free pass!

How exactly are men formally pronounced clean and women not? Interesting. Very interesting. I really want to hear the answer to that. You make it sound like women are just....hood ornaments.

[Misshalfway]

I think that RM status is a lousy marker of marriage worthiness. But...I think I speak for nearly all (if not, all) returned missionaries when I say that having served a mission is very much a defining factor of who I am inside.

Ok yeah. Serving a mission was certainly a hallmark in my life. No doubt. But it's not the only one. I know lots of women, for example, who didn't serve missions but who still make fantastic mothers and spouses and temple goers. And I know non-RM's who have been "proved" in other effective ways.

God gets his work done inside of the people who invite Him into their hearts. And He changes that person when they ready to be changed. Going on a mission does NOT guarantee this. If a boy doesn't go on a mission, it's a missed opportunity. But that doesn't mean God won't provide other opportunities for spiritual growth. I can't believe all is lost because an opportunity is lost.

PS.

While my mission was great, it was also the hardest, saddest, loneliest trials of my life. Another heartbreaking, ideal-breaking realization. It left traumatic marks on my heart and mind that I carried for many years. Missions are good. I wouldn't want my life without my precious mission experiences. But they aren't always like tear jerking ensign stories. I think we've got lots of sound doctrine here...and lots of cultural ideations clouding things too.

PSS. I think the church is very generous with offering wiggle room in regards to when people go. Isn't the cut off age 25 or 26 now? So a person can "struggle" for a bit and still have time to go. I like that.

QUOTE: "Our task is to become our best selves. One of God's greatest gifts to us is the joy of trying again, for no failure ever need be final." -- President Thomas S. Monson

Edited August 1, 2012 by Misshalfway
typos/added a quote

[Backroads]

I have an old boyfriend who is one of the most spiritual guys I know. Very solid testimony. He was unable to serve a mission because... he had a bit of a problem with the ladies (don't panic, by the time we were dating he had fully repented and changed and was... too old to serve a mission). Wonderful upstanding guy who will make a girl a great husband.

[unixknight]

To be fair, I believe I said a man who "gripes" about her reasoning. There's a difference between quietly disagreeing with someone, and holding their decision up to public ridicule.

Fair enough, and we agree on this, then.

Ideally, it wouldn't degenerate into a situation of "pick your poison". But if it comes to that - I think a "holier-than-thou" attitude is the lesser of two evils. It's a lot easier to spiritually recover from that, than it is to spiritually recover from a bad choice of a marriage partner.

I'm not sure about that. A "holier-than-thou" attitude can be extremely hard to recover from spiritually because it's so hard to recognize in one's self in the first place. We're all guilty of it from time to time, but it disturbs me to see it codified in any way.

I would respectfully suggest, too, that simply by virtue of this being a board that caters to Church members (the bulk of whom are active), the LDS.net sample is a wee bit skewed.

Fair enough.

We don't disagree all that much. I concede that the fact that a potential spouse has served a mission, doesn't really tell you a whole lot. But the fact that a priesthood-bearing potential spouse has not served a mission, is currently eligible to serve, but nevertheless has no plan to serve or even to prepare to serve; says a lot.

Indeed it does. It might say that the individual simply wasn't called to serve a mission. (At least, not yet.) My son (who is 19) was ready, willing and able to serve, and continues to be, but has not felt called to do so. I believe that if he feels called to serve, he will. Until then, he's focusing on earning his degree.

Because males hold the priesthood, and priesthood includes an obligation to do everything in your power to proclaim the Gospel. Women don't have to be formally pronounced clean from the blood and sins of this generation. Men do.

I understand your answer, but I'm not sure how it applies to this discussion. If a woman should limit her pool of options to only men who are RMs, on the grounds that they've demonstrated some higher degree of dedication and faithfulness, why shouldn't young men be encouraged to hold that exact same standard for women he'd date?

[Vort]

Indeed it does. It might say that the individual simply wasn't called to serve a mission. (At least, not yet.) My son (who is 19) was ready, willing and able to serve, and continues to be, but has not felt called to do so.

Callings come from the Lord through his chosen leaders, not from warm fuzzy feelings. I realize that larger Christianity uses this sort of wording, that they "felt called" to whatever. But when we in the LDS Church talk about callings, that is not what we are talking about.

As far as the sense of being invited by God to do something, your son HAS been "called" to missionary service, since his birth. If he is waiting for a special manifestation from God to do what he has already learned he is supposed to do, then that is a matter of lack of faith.

Consider: Missionary service is a Priesthood duty, much like home teaching. Do you think I should wait to get a divine revelation that I need to do my home teaching this month before I go out? If I do not get that revelation, do you suppose that my group leader will find it a sufficient excuse if I simply say, "Look, I wasn't called to do home teaching this month"? If I died and stood before the Lord and he asked me about my home teaching assignments, how far would I get by saying, "Lord, thou didst not give me a specific revelation about doing my home teaching last month"?

All young men in the Church have been called to missionary duty. It's inherent in receiving the Priesthood, and it has been made even more explicit for two generations now. If they have not specifically been excused, the expectation is that they will qualify themselves and then offer themselves for service.

(This is not meant to bag on your son. Just using the example you brought up.)

[unixknight]

(This is not meant to bag on your son. Just using the example you brought up.)

No worries I didn't take it that way, but thanks for making the effort to be clear on that

I don't mean to use the "being called" term in that context. What I mean is that if it's the case that serving a mission is sort of a default, then would that mean that a young man shouldn't expect to receive that answer in prayer?

In other words, if a young man feels unsure, shouldn't he be able to expect that response if he takes the matter up with the Lord in prayer? (In accordance with James 1:5)

I flat out reject any "one size fits all" solution. Not everyone is cut out to be a missionary. They just aren't. (Not talking about my son here. I leave that determination up to him.)

[Eleven]

Personally i cant stand the mentality of this subject.. Being a guy, Ive seen two of my friends that didnt serve missions because of their past mistakes and did every rightful darned thing to fix it, were that close to being called, and the first presidency declined. THEY DID EVERYTHING THEY COULD. and yet they feel ostracized that women wont even give them the time of day.

I hate to be so colorful in my post, but it makes me sick that this friend of mine that was so close to a mission was declined, HE is way more spiritually mature for facing his mistakes and making them right that some of the knuckle head missionaries i served with that completely wasted their mission service with watching movies, "hanging out" and doing other things they shouldnt..

This is almost the same discussion of choosing to marry a girl that isnt a virgin but has made a full turn around. My wife wasnt a virgin when she met me and she told me on our first date. Still to this day, she almost cries at the memory of my reaction, because i didnt even bat an eye when i said "I dont care where you've been. I can see where you are now". She thought for sure i was going to walk out and never talk to her again, but little did she know at that moment my mother wasnt a virgin either when she was married, and her parenting skills and the way she treated me was everything i wanted a mother to have. Because i knew that my own mother turned her self around from a bad mistake, i knew those who lost their virginity didnt deserve to be treated any differently as long as they learned from their mistake.

Not serving a mission is definitely NOT the same bar sin wise as pre-marital sex. But something I DEFINITELY see wrong with our people is how judgmental we can be on these two subjects.

[miztrniceguy]

I cannot tell you how many times, while I was still single, a girl in a LDS chat site would instant message me "RM?" without even asking my name. Like not being one means I am bad. Or that being one means you are guaranteed blissful marriage and honor and faithfullness etc. What a crock! How many RM's get their TR revoked shortly after they come back, or get sent home early.

[Just_A_Guy]

Hold the phone..... are you saying girl kinds don't have to be pronounced clean? Dude! Thanks for the free pass!

How exactly are men formally pronounced clean and women not? Interesting. Very interesting. I really want to hear the answer to that. You make it sound like women are just....hood ornaments.

Women are pronounced clean generally. Men are pronounced clean from the blood and sins of their generation. It's easy to miss, but the distinction does appear in two separate temple ordinances.

Moreover, the idea that failure to magnify your priesthood brings upon you the sins of those you could have saved had you been more diligent, appears at multiple points in the Book of Mormon.

Edited August 1, 2012 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

Women are pronounced clean generally. Men are pronounced clean from the blood and sins of their generation. It's easy to miss, but the distinction does appear in two separate temple ordinances.

Moreover, the idea that failure to magnify your priesthood brings upon you the sins of those you could have saved had you been more diligent, appears at multiple points in the Book of Mormon.

Explain what this means, JAG. For some reason, it's starting to sound like the Catholic original sin stuff...

[Vort]

Because males hold the priesthood, and priesthood includes an obligation to do everything in your power to proclaim the Gospel. Women don't have to be formally pronounced clean from the blood and sins of this generation. Men do.

I wish I had seen this before going to the temple yesterday morning (although I could not have, because it had not yet been written). That has never occurred to me, though by my recollection you're right. I look forward to hearing that in context next time I go to the temple.

Edited August 1, 2012 by Vort

[Just_A_Guy]

I'm not sure about that. A "holier-than-thou" attitude can be extremely hard to recover from spiritually because it's so hard to recognize in one's self in the first place. We're all guilty of it from time to time, but it disturbs me to see it codified in any way.

It could just be different life experiences between the two of us. You probably deal with a lot of unwarranted condemnation of your son, and so you're more sensitive to this issue. I routinely deal (through my work) with a lot of disintegrating marriages, many of which are LDS; so I'm perhaps more sensitive to that issue.

Indeed it does. It might say that the individual simply wasn't called to serve a mission. (At least, not yet.) My son (who is 19) was ready, willing and able to serve, and continues to be, but has not felt called to do so. I believe that if he feels called to serve, he will. Until then, he's focusing on earning his degree.

And that takes us back to some of Vort's earlier posts about whether, in light of the counsel of Kimball et al, "not feeling called" is sufficient reason for not going. I won't push the issue too hard, except to say that I think that a harder-line position on this issue is defensible.

I understand your answer, but I'm not sure how it applies to this discussion. If a woman should limit her pool of options to only men who are RMs, on the grounds that they've demonstrated some higher degree of dedication and faithfulness, why shouldn't young men be encouraged to hold that exact same standard for women he'd date?

Because the issue isn't whether a potential spouse is "extra-qualified" for marriage. The issue is whether the potential spouse is fulfilling the basic obligations that the gospel in general, and (for males) the priesthood in particular, has imposed upon him/her--or, at minimum, is fully repentant for having failed to do so in the past.

In other words, if a young man feels unsure, shouldn't he be able to expect that response if he takes the matter up with the Lord in prayer? (In accordance with James 1:5)

True, but at some point that must be reconciled with the D&C admonition that "it is not meet that I command in all things" and Ether 12:6 (you receive no witness until after the trial of your faith).

With regard to the OP, I submit that the problem isn't that the Church is teaching young women to be too picky. The problem is that the Church is turning out hundreds of young men who have no idea what the priesthood actually is, or what duties it entails, or how their performance of those duties (or lack thereof) ties into the covenants that are prerequisites for temple marriage. And they expect to be permitted to preside over their wives by virtue of their "priesthood" without having to be accountable to their wives for the way they've managed their priesthood stewardship.

Edited August 1, 2012 by Just_A_Guy

[Just_A_Guy]

Explain what this means, JAG. For some reason, it's starting to sound like the Catholic original sin stuff...

See this older post of mine on a different thread.

[Bini]

I still agree with the overall basis of post #67 by Vort.

I wanted to add another thought of my own. It's important to remember that while the status of "returned missionary" says something about one's character, it is not the all and final saying in defining who someone is. I dated some RMs that were not gentlemen, and I dated some non-RMs (active/inactive/non-LDS) that were gentlemen. So to reiterate, you'll do better if you judge a person by their character, and not by a label. I don't think anyone in this entire thread has argued otherwise. But it's important to maintain a certain set of standards and expectations when dating, right? Right!

[Guest]

See this older post of mine on a different thread.

My non-RM husband qualifies, for sure. I mean - there's me, converted to the Church and every one of my ancestors that have had their work done in the temple and then there's my children. All in large part to my husband's worthiness to hold the priesthood.

[alucarD1975]

I won't add a whole lot to the conversation other than to say this:

I worked in the mission office for several months as a missionary and was privy to some of the information about what missionaries were and/or weren't doing. My observation is that having served a mission is a very poor indicator of the commitment and conviction of the individual. And I was in a mission with very few behavioral problems.

Using "RM status" as an indicator of "fit for marriage" is just setting our young women up for disappointment.

I agree I served as AP while on my mission and was privy to the goings on in the mission. kids go because they feel pressue or thats its an expectation, not because they really want to go. The service that they perform reflects this.

I have more respect for the guy who chose to not go because he didn't feel inspired to do so and still continues on as a firm member of the church, than the kid who felt forced to go and didnt serve as he should have

[Backroads]

But why would every boy be inspired to do something every worthy young man of the church is told to do?

[unixknight]

I still agree with the overall basis of post #67 by Vort.

I wanted to add another thought of my own. It's important to remember that while the status of "returned missionary" says something about one's character, it is not the all and final saying in defining who someone is. I dated some RMs that were not gentlemen, and I dated some non-RMs (active/inactive/non-LDS) that were gentlemen. So to reiterate, you'll do better if you judge a person by their character, and not by a label. I don't think anyone in this entire thread has argued otherwise. But it's important to maintain a certain set of standards and expectations when dating, right? Right!

Sure, but that's the problem... What you're talking about is thoughtful and a matter of using judgment. What some of us are objecting to is the encouragement put judgment aside and blindly use a litmus test that is demonstrably unreliable.

JAG, I think you're right about it being largely a matter of coming at it from different perspectives. I'm glad that doesn't keep us from being able to talk about it reasonably, and even agree to disagree :)

[Vort]

What some of us are objecting to is the encouragement put judgment aside and blindly use a litmus test that is demonstrably unreliable.

In 49 years I have never seen such a thing. Do you have an example you can point to?

[Backroads]

Sure, but that's the problem... What you're talking about is thoughtful and a matter of using judgment. What some of us are objecting to is the encouragement put judgment aside and blindly use a litmus test that is demonstrably unreliable.

To make the RM status, all by itself, a litmus test... yeah, that's a bad idea.

However, I stand by the concept that all worthy young men are expected to serve a mission. I might buy the idea they were inspired to do something else worthwhile--something specific. But I do not believe any worth young man would be inspired not to go on a mission.

Back when I was dating, I dated several guys who did not serve missions. Some had excellent excuses (unworthy at the time, providing for their families, etc.) Some of them said, more or less, they didn't feel particularly inspired to go. So they didn't.

Guess which ones I had fewer dates with.

No, an RM status in and of itself is a terrible qualitication for marriage. But as part of the whole, a man who honored his priesthood by serving a mission or had a good excuse not to serve (not just some whimpy "I didn't feel inspired") IS a good sign.

[classylady]

While on my mission I met a number of missionaries who at first didn't know if they had a strong testimony or not. They went because they felt it was the right thing to do. Most of them gained strong testimonies while serving. I'm grateful they still chose to go because they served the Lord and were on the Lord's errand. The Lord knows his missionaries. He knows their weaknesses. Yet they are still called to serve. This is His work and it will continue to go on. If everyone stayed home because they felt their testimony was not as strong as it should be, there would be a lot fewer missionaries out there. I feel privileged to have met so many wonderful young men and women who were serving missions the same time I was. Some of the Elders were goof-offs. Most of them stayed and completed their missions. I still feel it was a privilege and honor to know them. They were still wonderful young men who were serving the Lord even with their weaknesses. They did a lot of good, even though they weren't perfect. I respect them for sticking it out. It was hard for them. To me it speaks a lot about their character that they completed two years of a very difficult time. When I think about some of those Elders, even to this day, I have a great love for them. They really struggled. But stuck it out. I truly gained a love and respect for the missionaries who put aside two years of their lives to serve, when it was so hard for them. The Lord knows each of us. I believe He probably even knows to some extent how a particular missionary is going to behave while on a mission. Yet the missionary is still called. Missionary work is so important! It's an experience I wouldn't have traded for anything! I can't convey the feelings of joy I felt when an investigator accepted the Gospel. What's the saying ... "There is no greater joy...?" What a blessing it was to serve. Even with my own weaknesses I had, and the feelings of being so inadequate, my mission was truly a blessing. And, yes, it was also an experience of deep sorrow, disappointments, and frustrations. I certainly learned very quickly what my own faults and weaknesses were. I just wish that any young man or woman who is thinking of going on a mission but are afraid because they are weak, to put aside their fears, strengthen themselves, and go and serve the Lord. It's truly a remarkable experience!

[unixknight]

In 49 years I have never seen such a thing. Do you have an example you can point to?

Sure, unfortunately.

The thing that got me to notice this problem was actually a few years ago. A good friend of mine was having that problem where he was interested in a girl and they actually got along very well, enjoyed each other's company, and it seemed natural that they might start dating.

So he asked her.

Her answer? No. Why? Because he's not a RM. Had he been, she'd have dated him. She even said so, so this isn't a theory or conjecture. And why did she do this? Because it's what she'd been advised to do by some leader in her ward or another. So yes, she was putting aside her judgment to blindly follow that advice, to the detriment of my friend and, frankly, her own. He's a really great guy.

Besides, in this very thread we've seen where people (possibly erroneously) have advised young women to limit their dating pool to only RMs. I shouldn't even need to have shown you an example for it to be clear that yes, people are using this as a litmus test.

[annewandering]

Another aspect of this is the girl who goes after RMs just because they are. Recent RMs are very vulnerable to those cute girls batting the eyes so prettily. It can be very bad combination. They seem to think that all that matters is the RM.

I know at least one life that has been affected in poor ways by this single qualification criteria.

Better to emphasize learning judgment.