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

[Vort]

So, yeah, I guess 2 of 13 or so posters is a majority.

Only when I am one of them. Such is the Power of the Vort.

[Dravin]

Only when I am one of them. Such is the Power of the Vort.

You're like Texas, you think you matter more. I vote we now call you Vortex.

[Wingnut]

You're like Texas, you think you matter more. I vote we now call you Vortex.

[Guest]

Then I think you are not hearing what's being said.

I was not aware we were engaged in a competition.

I don't know, anatess. You reading the same thead I am? The only ones that could remotely be saying what you think they are saying (and they aren't, read it again) are Backroad's husband and Vort.

So, yeah, I guess 2 of 13 or so posters is a majority.

Okay, I apologize. My first statement was very poorly expressed.

What I'm hearing HERE - the OP, or rather what his impression is of what their YW is learning. Not the replies to the thread. Yes, very poor choice of words.

And about the competition... I'm making it a competition - trying to be funny in the way I say - my husband is not an RM and he's one of the greatest things since slice bread. Oh! Another trying to be funny thing... I should quit that. My humor bone is not humorous.

I mean, P.P.P.P.S... was supposed to be really funny.

Oh wait... Maybe this is what's missing...

Yeah, I think that's better now.

[classylady]

What I'm hearing here is...

If you're a convert to the church looking for an LDS girl to marry... you're out of luck.

I didn't get that same message from this thread. Instead, I what I heard was "buyer beware". There's a reason they didn't serve, and it would be best to look at the reasons the young man didn't serve. If a man is a convert, and beyond the age of serving a mission, then he cannot be expected to have served. There are plenty of LDS girls that would accept such a man.

* P.S. my husband is not a return missionary and I'll pit him against any RM any day of the week.

Aw, but just think! What if he had served a mission? Don't you think he would be that much further ahead spiritually? My mission was so wonderful. I feel bad that my husband missed out on wonderful spiritual experiences because he chose not to serve.

** P.P.S. my husband feels disciminated against because he didn't serve a mission. he doesn't let it faze him.

When I asked my husband if he feels discriminated against because he didn't serve a mission he says that he doesn't blame the church or members for any discrimination. He said it was a choice that he made, and so he is reaping the consequences.

*** P.P.S. for those non-RMs... there's always the devout Catholic girls...

**** P.P.P.S... well, only if those girls are like me.

***** P.P.P.P.S. ... okay, I think I've said enough.

Anatess, I think it's wonderful that you joined the church. There's just no guarantee that when you marry outside of the church that your spouse will ever join. You are a wonderful example of a member marrying a nonmember, and the nonmember joining the church. I love your posts on the forums.

[Backroads]

I believe its the right thing to encourage our young men to prepare for and go on a mission. Its where they need to be. But, they need to do it because its right for them not because everyone expects them to go.

How were you able to put it into such simple language?

[Misshalfway]

I think this thread highlights a few things worth looking at.

1) Our attitudes about missionary service and what constitutes a "worthy" marriage prospect.

2) How we might be reinforcing narrow (and unhelpful) attitudes at church.

I love missionary work. It's a beautiful idea that brings a load of growth to the individual who embarks ( even the one who makes mistakes). But I sometimes feel that we idealize people who serve. Of course we want to celebrate those who sacrifice. Going on a mission is certainly an exercise in that. But, like so many have said, "RM" status isn't the most reliable litmus test for marital readiness or spiritual worthiness.

Before I served my mission, I was like many. I thought all RM were true young men who were a cut above. My mission opened my eyes, and frankly, crushed my trust that our modern missionaries were just like the stripling warriors. I won't share the details of what I witnessed, but it was shocking behavior that was far beneath the standards of the church. Perhaps my experience was unique. Judging by posts like MOE's, I'm guessing not.

Also, I went to BYU. And I kissed a lot of frogs. RM frogs who tried to hop right up my shirt! Why I didn't deck the one is beyond me....

What I'm saying is that I think I respect the young man (or woman) who knows they aren't worthy/ready to accept a call and who stays home MORE than the one who pretends to be something he isn't because he can't tell the truth. I think lots of people go on missions because of the social pressure. And I think we need to look at that as parents, leaders, and members. Hopefully the new higher standards for missionary service are helping.

And I don't think one's life should be based upon the decision one makes when they are 19. The human brain isn't even fully developed at 19. Our lives should be based upon who we are and what we've learned. Our mistakes/missteps/disobedience is all part of that. God judges on the heart. I think we need to take a few lessons here.

Beyond that....I'm not sure what the answers are for church cirruculum. We've got to teach our young people about high standards and about setting those in marriage as well. But maybe if we widened the way we teach these concepts, our young people will have a better sense of balance and wisdom. I, for one, am teaching my children to do a lot interviewing. :)

Edited July 30, 2012 by Misshalfway

[Backroads]

We've got to teach our young people about high standards and about setting those in marriage as well. But maybe if we widened the way we teach these concepts, our young people will have a better sense of balance and wisdom. I, for one, am teaching my children to do a lot interviewing. :)

It is true, standards are required. It seems the YW lessons don't themselves specifically say "marry an RM", that seems to be cultural.

What if we took the time to list the QUALITIES --not the "jobs"--of potential mates?

[Misshalfway]

It is true, standards are required. It seems the YW lessons don't themselves specifically say "marry an RM", that seems to be cultural.

What if we took the time to list the QUALITIES --not the "jobs"--of potential mates?

Love it!!

With all the varied ways God brings people to the knowledge of the truth, I think we need to leave the door open for wise exceptions. All the more reason to teach our children to learn how to trust and to be led by the Lord. Just like so many in the scriptures...God leads righteous people onto unknown roads and to unknown destinations. In these modern times and with so much ambiguity, I think our young people need these skills as much all the "don't make mistakes" talk.

[Backroads]

The "don't make mistakes" talks always sort of bugged me. I didn't like to ask a question about something and be told "It won't be a problem if you don't do it." Yes, that's obvious. But what if it's too late?

I think youth need the big picture.

[Just_A_Guy]

A couple of observations:

1) Temple marriage not an inalienable right to be enjoyed by all male members of the Church. It is a privilege: a perk for those who have accepted and lived the Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood; consecrating everything they are, have, and will ever be blessed with, to the Lord. Where a prospective mate is still technically eligible to serve a mission, I think it's legitimate to ask: "If you weren't ready to commit to God for two years through a mission, are you sure you're ready to commit to God for a lifetime of consecration via the ordinances that are prerequisites to our temple marriage?" I think that's the idea that unfortunately has become distilled down into "only marry an RM".

2) The "only marry an RM" meme, while simplistic and occasionally unduly hurtful (and, from an official LDS curriculum standpoint, spurious), does have the advantage of being an easy-to-understand, bright-line standard that keeps a lot of people out of trouble--including, at one point, a family member of mine. She couldn't see what the rest of us saw--that her then-boyfriend was a complete sleazebag--but ultimately, she ended the relationship over the non-RM issue and went on to mature a bit spiritually, eventually marrying a really great guy.

3) Problematic though the "only marry an RM" thing is, it isn't the same as saying "all RMs are OK". If I tell you to go hire a lawyer, I'm implicitly telling you that a non-lawyer can't handle your case. But it does not follow that you shouldn't be very, very careful about which lawyer you select; or that you should assume that all lawyers are equally qualified.

4) My experience is that many of the young men who complain about young women being "too picky", seem to implicitly assume that a young man has some sort of right to be accepted by a particular girl. This is, of course, nonsense.

5) As Jane Austin pointed out, “The most incomprehensible thing in the world to a man, is a woman who rejects his offer of marriage!” IMHO, guy who gripes about his would-be fiancee's decision-making process, merely confirms that he never respected her enough to have a healthy marriage with her in the first place.

Edited July 30, 2012 by Just_A_Guy

[Anddenex]

5) As Jane Austin pointed out, “The most incomprehensible thing in the world to a man, is a woman who rejects his offer of marriage!” IMHO, guy who gripes about his would-be fiancee's decision-making process, merely confirms that he never respected her enough to have a healthy marriage with her in the first place.

This is probably the most important quote any young woman should be introduced to. I will be sharing something like this with my two daughters when they are of age.

[annewandering]

If people did not marry anyone who did not serve a mission, our prophet would be single.

[unixknight]

5) As Jane Austin pointed out, “The most incomprehensible thing in the world to a man, is a woman who rejects his offer of marriage!” IMHO, guy who gripes about his would-be fiancee's decision-making process, merely confirms that he never respected her enough to have a healthy marriage with her in the first place.

Gotta call you out on this one, brother.

There is nothing whatsoever wrong with having a problem with a decision making process that's arbitrary and over simplistic. If a prospective fiancee' were to reject a man solely on the basis of his not being a RM, then he has a perfect right to gripe.

It isn't a matter of not respecting her, because frankly, a decision like that, based on something so arbitrary and self-righteous deserves no respect. (Note: I said the decision, not the person.) It's very clear that she isn't respecting him.

We have agency for a reason, friends. Not using our judgment in favor of an arbitrary standard like that is essentially letting your agency lie dormant, because you're letting someone else tell you how to think.

Frankly, if I were a young man looking for a wife, I'd be much more interested in a woman who actually used her judgment and got to know me, and not someone who said something as vacant as "Well I think you're really nice and a great guy but you never went on a mission so I can't consider you for marriage."

Heh. Bye bye, sweetheart.

[unixknight]

If people did not marry anyone who did not serve a mission, our prophet would be single.

You rock. I need you to know this :)

[Vort]

If a prospective fiancee' were to reject a man solely on the basis of his not being a RM, then he has a perfect right to gripe.

I disagree. A person has the right to reject an offer of marriage for any reason. ANY reason at all. Hair color, obesity, too thin, not the right kind of body odor, skin color, nationalilty, accent, lack of accent, BIC, not BIC, missionary service -- whatever. Whether these are "good" reasons by your or my (or the rejectee's) judgment is utterly irrelevant. When you're talking about a lifelong and potentially eternal choice like marriage, you get to exercise your veto power for whatever reason you find sufficient.

That is not to say that there are not better and worse reasons to refuse to marry someone. There are. But we get to make that determination only for ourselves.

[Vort]

A couple of observations:

1. 5 ≠ "a couple"

2. Your Austen quote wins you far more points than you lost in #1.

[Sicily510]

I think this starts with at home teachings, the church can only do so much but as parents we must counsel our children so that they can choose according to their individual standards of what they want to seek in their marriage partner. This is a big issue in my culture since I am Tongan and I've experienced that parents tell their sons/daughters to go on missions and they become prideful but their sons/daughters are still not upholding the Words of Wisdom when they return. The main goal is to teach the light of Jesus Christ humility, order, and charity with prayer, faith, hope, repentance and good works. When young men or women are taught of these divine traits they will seek for these in a companion.

[applepansy]

How were you able to put it into such simple language?

Because I've had ten years to think about it?

[Wingnut]

Before I served my mission, I was like many. I thought all RM were true young men who were a cut above. My mission opened my eyes, and frankly, crushed my trust that our modern missionaries were just like the stripling warriors. I won't share the details of what I witnessed, but it was shocking behavior that was far beneath the standards of the church. Perhaps my experience was unique. Judging by posts like MOE's, I'm guessing not.

I know, right? I think the thing is that, as 14-year-old girls, we're all doe-eyed and in awe of the missionaries...they're so much older, so mature, and guys all look better in suits. But I had a similar realization as I served my mission -- they're still just 19 and 20 years old...and really immature. I have a brother that just left on his mission last month, and I can't believe that someone as immature as (I think) he is can serve a mission!

Hindsight is always 20/20, I guess.

[Misshalfway]

I disagree. A person has the right to reject an offer of marriage for any reason. ANY reason at all. Hair color, obesity, too thin, not the right kind of body odor, skin color, nationalilty, accent, lack of accent, BIC, not BIC, missionary service -- whatever. Whether these are "good" reasons by your or my (or the rejectee's) judgment is utterly irrelevant. When you're talking about a lifelong and potentially eternal choice like marriage, you get to exercise your veto power for whatever reason you find sufficient.

That is not to say that there are not better and worse reasons to refuse to marry someone. There are. But we get to make that determination only for ourselves.

I agree with this, but I also think this highlights the problem. We aren't teaching our girls (and boys) how to make decisions and that it's ok to do it this way. I'm generalizing here, but I think that this is part of the "gripe" of the OP. I think the real issue is how we teach people how to use their agency and how to own it. As you said, it's absolutely ok to say no to someone "just because". And our young people (and older people too) need to know it's ok to say "no" and to act in our best interest and according to our preferences. I know I would have done better in my dating choices had I received some of this direction. I'd have a been a heckuva lot less codependent about the whole thing.

[Finrock]

Good evening Ijustforgotit. I hope you are well. :)

Many of you young women out there.. don't define a man on that one factor alone... its not right. Any thoughts?

They need to also teach in young womens that there are good men out there who have not served missions also... and that people can change....i did

I think young women should be taught that they ought to settle for nothing less than a temple marriage with a worthy man who honors his priesthood. I also don't think it is fair that people should be defined solely by their mistakes or flaws, particularly if they have repented and are currently worthy to enter the temple and are honoring their priesthood.

Respectfully,

Finrock

[Just_A_Guy]

Gotta call you out on this one, brother.

There is nothing whatsoever wrong with having a problem with a decision making process that's arbitrary and over simplistic.

Well, I'd disagree on two grounds.

First, as I hope I hinted in my previous post: problematic though such an approach is, let's not deceive ourselves: Sometimes, it works. Anecdotal experience has convinced me that for every decent guy who didn't serve a mission for whatever reason (and/or has since repented), there are probably two or three who quite frankly aren't committed to the Gospel but are quite willing to pretend otherwise (for a couple of months, at least) if they think it will get a young Mormon girl to marry them.

If I were a female--I'd be sorry to lose the one; but not nearly as sorry as I'd be if I were stuck with one of the other two or three. It's cold calculus, but let's be honest: (successful) courtship is not an exercise in altruism.

Second, quite honestly, I don't always agree with the decision-making processes my wife uses; and I daresay it would be the same with any female I happened to marry. Males and females are wired differently, and we approach problems differently. At some point a male has to just let go and say "I really don't understand or agree with your line of reasoning; but I respect you enough to get it some deference".

We have agency for a reason, friends. Not using our judgment in favor of an arbitrary standard like that is essentially letting your agency lie dormant, because you're letting someone else tell you how to think.

I submit that expecting a potential partner in a temple sealing to have an established track record of a) attempting to live the law of Consecration insofar as it is expected of us to do so, and b) attempting to preach the Gospel in order to rid himself of the blood and sins of this generation, is not an arbitrary standard.

As you said, it's absolutely ok to say no to someone "just because". And our young people (and older people too) need to know it's ok to say "no" and to act in our best interest and according to our preferences.

Au contraire:

The problem with dating, if you’re a guy, is that you are basically spending money just to find out whether or not a girl likes you. It’s like going to an audition, except you have to pay the casting director just for the privilege of being there. In the real world, if a girl doesn’t like you, she’ll say no when you ask her out. Here [at BYU], girls never say no when you ask them out, because they’ve been taught to say no to a long, long list of various suggestions and propositions, but to NEVER refuse a potential date, as long as he’s LDS. It doesn’t matter if he has the personality of a towel. It doesn’t matter if he has B.O. so powerful it causes blistering around the eyes and mouths of bystanders. It doesn’t matter if he’s so unattractive he spends most evenings fleeing from a mob of angry townspeople who are carrying torches and shouting “Kill the monster!” You at least agree to go on one date with him, just to be “nice.” I don’t know where this concept of blind, self-sacrificing niceness was taught, but I assume it was during Mutual, while the boys were out on those Nazi death march Boy Scout activities, learning practical skills like rebellion against the church, and swearing.

[unixknight]

I disagree. A person has the right to reject an offer of marriage for any reason. ANY reason at all.

Of course, nobody is saying otherwise.

But Just_A_Guy was saying that if a man has a problem with a prospective fiancee's reasoning then he would have been a bad husband anyway and I think that's unfair to say. A man might have to respect her decision in the sense that he can't force it, of course. Nobody's saying otherwise... But that doesn't mean he has to have respect for that process, and can quite reasonably think it's a terrible and arbitrary reason.

[unixknight]

Well, I'd disagree on two grounds.

First, as I hope I hinted in my previous post: problematic though such an approach is, let's not deceive ourselves: Sometimes, it works. Anecdotal experience has convinced me that for every decent guy who didn't serve a mission for whatever reason (and/or has since repented), there are probably two or three who quite frankly aren't committed to the Gospel but are quite willing to pretend otherwise (for a couple of months, at least) if they think it will get a young Mormon girl to marry them.

If I were a female--I'd be sorry to lose the one; but not nearly as sorry as I'd be if I were stuck with one of the other two or three. It's cold calculus, but let's be honest: (successful) courtship is not an exercise in altruism.

Maybe so, but it definitely contributes to a certain "holier-than-thou" attitude which sometimes creeps into church culture. I don't agree that it works quite so well as you're suggesting, and the anecdotes we've seen already in this thread would make me seriously question the value of that approach.

Second, quite honestly, I don't always agree with the decision-making processes my wife uses; and I daresay it would be the same with any female I happened to marry. Males and females are wired differently, and we approach problems differently. At some point a male has to just let go and say "I really don't understand or agree with your line of reasoning; but I respect you enough to get it some deference".

Ultimately, of course he has to defer to it, but his thinking it's stupid and arbitrary doesn't somehow certify that he would have been a bad husband anyway.

I submit that expecting a potential partner in a temple sealing to have an established track record of a) attempting to live the law of Consecration insofar as it is expected of us to do so, and b) attempting to preach the Gospel in order to rid himself of the blood and sins of this generation, is not an arbitrary standard.

I think where we disagree here, and it's been hinted at before in this thread, is that going to serve a mission is not proof that he's got a track record of those things. It could be that a guy serves a mission, not because he felt called to, but because he's trying to live up to parents' or ward expectations. It could be that he knows he'll have a more limited selection of possible marriage options if he doesn't, so he goes on that basis. It could be for a million other reasons hinted at earlier. Also as stated earlier, that might well make such a person a worse candidate for marriage than a guy who chooses to stay home for the right reasons rather than to go for the wrong ones.

I'll concede that such cases are in the minority (At least, I hope they are) but while I have a deep respect for those who willingly go to serve the Lord by spreading the Gospel, that trait alone doesn't say enough about a person to indicate whether they'd make a good husband or not.

For that matter, a thought just occurred to me... Why aren't young men counseled to only marry returned sister missionaries?