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

[Backroads]

I do have to ask another question: Is it really so wrong to begin a mission mainly trying to live up to "what everyone thinks you ought to be doing"? (I believe this is what Bini was trying to get at earlier). Sure, the ideal missionary might be the young man constantly in tune with the spirit, but the fact is that we have been told all young men should try to serve a mission. Ideally, many of these young men will eventually discover the true reason they are out in the field, but I also see much good in honoring expectations.

[Anddenex]

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

I was. My father counseled me the moment I returned home from my mission to ONLY marry a woman who also returned home from her mission, and she should be at least 2 years older than me. Is my father wrong in his counsel? No. He was counseling me in what he felt was best for me.

I married a woman 4 years younger and not a returned missionary. A mission is not a duty, or requirement, for a woman. It is solely their choice. Whereas, as Vort pointed out, to serve a mission for a young man it is a priesthood responsibility.

However, the question, if it follows suit with this thread, should be, "Is it right for a young men to choose ONLY to marry a sister who has returned home from a mission?"

The answer would be YES, if that is what the individual feels is best for him, just as it is right and ok for a young woman to decide ONLY to marry a returned missionary.

[Anddenex]

I do have to ask another question: Is it really so wrong to begin a mission mainly trying to live up to "what everyone thinks you ought to be doing"? (I believe this is what Bini was trying to get at earlier). Sure, the ideal missionary might be the young man constantly in tune with the spirit, but the fact is that we have been told all young men should try to serve a mission. Ideally, many of these young men will eventually discover the true reason they are out in the field, but I also see much good in honoring expectations.

If it wasn't for the expectations my parents set, and two young ladies, I would have never gained a testimony and I would have never served a mission. I am thankful for these two young ladies who desired ONLY to marry a returned missionary.

At the age of 15, I had decided I would be whatever religion my wife was. As an ignorant young teen, I was unable to distinguish between my parents love, their discipline, and the gospel.

As a result of honoring expectations, I decided I needed to discover for myself if the church was true. The two ladies: my best friend in High School, the other was the young lady I dated my senior year. The first young woman, helped me solidify the importance of serving a mission (I thank God for her friendship), the second was a woman I actually thought I would marry. I knew also, she wouldn't settle for anybody, but a returned missionary. This sealed the deal for me, if any doubt remained it was quenched, because I wanted to marry her, or to marry someone of her class, spirit, and intelligence.

Although, I went on my mission with mere seed of a testimony due to my honoring of my parents expectations, and desiring to marry someone like this young lady. I went and served. My testimony blossomed, and the Lord provided me experiences on my mission that solidified my testimony.

Even the prophets counsel, to have expectations, solid expectations because children will want to live up to them.

As Elder D. Todd Christofferson said,

Our Heavenly Father is a God of high expectations.

[Misshalfway]

I think the church is doing what it knows to do....and I think people in the church trust it implicitly (understandable but not always wise). Who was it earlier that was talking about parenting? Our kids need us to be so involved in their growth and development in all areas. They need it to survive the world in the last days, and they need it to survive the church! Some of you might feel I'm criticizing the church with that remark. I am not. I just recognize the limits of an earthly organization that is administered by imperfect beings. There is another thread about the importance of scriptures. The more I study, the more I recognize the parallels and lessons that relate very much to our LDS cultural organized structure. I think that the Lord, amongst other things, is trying to help us avoid the pitfalls of such "earthly" religion.

I wish that I could trust my daughters to RM's in general. I wish that RM meant what we wish it did. But the truth is that we are living in a crazy last day's world with very "human" people who are often doing the best they can. I have tender mercies in my heart cuz all of us are in this circumstance.

But that doesn't mean I don't long to raise the bar!!

Someone else talked about how we shouldn't put so much pressure on the girls to "help" the boys not act out. I think there is SO much pressure on young women to "help" the boys in so many ways. Whether it's not dressing to "tempt" them, or being "nice" so none of them has to deal with rejection, or forgiving them when they act badly cuz "women are suppose to". It all just seems like such an imbalance to me. One that doesn't come from God. IMO, It comes from earthly, unempowered attitudes that are rooted in fear.

Trying to date a girl is scary for boys. I get it. Like it's not for girls. And it can be expensive too. I get that. But sometimes I'd like to go back to BYU campus and slap a little self confidence and "owning" into our young men. I want to tell them.....So what if you get rejected? So what if she makes you work a little? What are you so afraid that this means? Last time I checked, men are rev'ed by challenge. Quit making the girls lower their standards (using this word in the broadest sense) just so you don't have to risk or learn the lessons of sacrifice. Own your life. Own your choices. And we gotta learn that risk is essential to finding true connection with another person.

Why don't we teach our boys (and girls) what it means to "man up" in all areas of their lives. They've got to man up in the love of God. And they've got to man up in the love of self. When they love and accept self, they can love and accept others. They don't "need" a woman to make it all ok. THIS is what women want. THIS is what RM should mean.

You want the antidote to porn problems?? money problems?? Marital problems?? This is it.

Now....someone please make a joke. I've gotten far too serious.

Edited July 31, 2012 by Misshalfway

[applepansy]

I do have to ask another question: Is it really so wrong to begin a mission mainly trying to live up to "what everyone thinks you ought to be doing"? (I believe this is what Bini was trying to get at earlier). Sure, the ideal missionary might be the young man constantly in tune with the spirit, but the fact is that we have been told all young men should try to serve a mission. Ideally, many of these young men will eventually discover the true reason they are out in the field, but I also see much good in honoring expectations.

President Hinckley is an example of this. Without the expectations of his father he would have come home from his mission.

[Guest]

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.

I had a "language fail" on that one. I didn't mean the thread. I meant the OP.

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.

Actually, this is one of my testimony builders. I truly believed that the way I grew up and the way my husband grew up in the gospel was specifically meant for both of us to be able to share this eternal marriage together. My husband did not serve a mission because when he turned 17, he started to doubt the Church. He got kicked out of his house (long story), so he ended up living on his own very early in his life. This gave him the freedom to explore his spiritual self outside of the LDS Church's expectations. His spiritual journey led him from agnosticism to attending every single church he encountered looking for "truth". He met me when he was 19. He did not find the "true church", so he was churchless. I was a devout Catholic. We were best friends for 2 years - I learned about his "search for truth" and I thought I would be his "compass" and eventually he will see the truth of the Catholic Church. He was 21 when he asked me out on our very first "date" - we attended the Singles Ward. It was his first time back to Church. By this time, his testimony has been forged. Solid. He already decided to ask me to marry him and he felt that before he can do that, he has to make it "right with God". A few weeks later we were married. He went on this major repentance thing with his bishop while at the same time attending Catholic Mass every Sunday with me.

Okay, he is white American, I am Filipino. He didn't graduate high school, I have tons of educational credentials. He was a "feast or famine" runway model, I owned a house. We were so opposite and we fought on a lot of those things. But one thing we never fought over - is religion. My husband is so secure with his testimony that my devout Catholic opinionated self could not sway it. And because he's "been there done that", he had a lot of patience with my "LDS can't be true because..." views.

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.

My husband feels a little differently. He feels that a mission is great and good but is not enough to elevate one's testimony over another, so he doesn't see it as a "reaping the consequence" thing. His spiritual journey was different than the "norm" but it's a journey nonetheless. Of course, he's preparing our sons for their missions.

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.

Yes, there is none at all. So, if I had daughters (I don't, thank goodness), I would tell them to find great RMs. But at the same time, if my husband was an RM, it's highly unlikely that he'd give me - a devout Catholic - a chance. So, in essence, my daughters would know by their father's experience that great RMs is a "guideline" (like in Pirates of the Carribean) - the rest is completely up to each individual's specific spiritual journey and what principles they stand rock solid on.

Thanks for the compliment, classylady! Sometimes I feel so completely different from everybody.

[Guest]

Now....someone please make a joke. I've gotten far too serious.

We watched Star Trek yesterday (Nemesis) and Jean-Luc Piccard says, "Fire at will!". And my sons says, "I thought his name was Shinzon"... I was so confused until my other son busts out laughing...

Great post, Misshalfway. I agree about manning up!

[NeuroTypical]

Now....someone please make a joke. I've gotten far too serious.

My wife keeps looking at me and saying, "You said you'd die for me, and you haven't yet."

[Vort]

We watched Star Trek yesterday (Nemesis) and Jean-Luc Piccard says, "Fire at will!". And my sons says, "I thought his name was Shinzon"... I was so confused until my other son busts out laughing...

I always thought they should take out their phasers and shoot at Riker.

[Just_A_Guy]

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Edited July 31, 2012 by Just_A_Guy

[MorningStar]

It was my brother who pressured me the most to marry an RM. He put off his mission because he wanted to marry his girlfriend, but then he finally decided to go when he turned 21. He told me, "I was a loser before I went on my mission!"

I dated a guy who was 20 and hadn't served a mission yet. My brother strongly pressured me to dump him, which I ended up doing because he had some qualities (or rather lack of quality) that I wasn't happy with, but not because he hadn't served a mission. It did seem though that church wasn't a big priority for him and since my biggest goal was to marry someone who would stay active in the church (unlike my dad), marrying him would have been a big risk.

I knew guys who lied their way through their interviews to go on their missions unworthily. I also knew guys who made mistakes and didn't make things worse by going anyway. One of my best friends joined the military to avoid the constant questions about why he hadn't gone on a mission yet and later he became active in church again after being inactive for a while. He is one of the best husbands and father I know and a very dedicated Scout leader too.

I would rather my daughter marry a non RM who was honest than an RM who lied repeatedly because he was too much of a coward to stay home when he should have. That shows he cares about appearances more than doing the right thing. I want her to marry someone absolutely dedicated to the Gospel.

I feel like it's best to plan on marrying an RM unless the Spirit tells you otherwise, but a girl might find an older guy who is a recent convert, someone who was reactivated, etc.

[Backroads]

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.

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.

This is excellent.

I'm getting the impression that because the "I served a mission" statement doesn't give you a good read of the person, some believe believe that serving a mission is purely optional, only to be done if one "feels like it" or "thinks it might be fun".

[Echo2002]

I remember being a YW there was a lot of emphasis on dating RMs. When I was called to be a YW teacher I tried to place more emphasis on honesty and character rather than judging a guy based on whether or not he was a RM. I knew from friends who married RMs, that that did not guarantee he was going to be a good husband or even a faithful church member.

[Ijustforgotit]

However you may believe, the fact remains that full-time missionary work is a Melchizedek Priesthood responsibility. Not every worthy young man will be called to serve a mission -- some will be "honorably excused" -- but the fact remains that every LDS young man should be worthy and willing to fulfill his Priesthood service, and that service includes full-time missionary service, unless specifically excused from it.

An LDS young man who refuses to serve a mission has thus declared that he will not do his duty in this thing. Since our prophets and leaders have made the necessity of missionary service crystal clear, such a young man is openly refusing the counsel of his leaders.

It is neither my place nor my intention to condemn such young men; I am simply stating obvious, self-evident facts.

Given that this is the case, is it any wonder that young women might use missionary service as a shibboleth of faithfulness? I agree that it's not a perfect indicator, and I also agree that there are fine LDS men who refused to serve missions (though I expect they have repented of that attitude) that would make far better, more loving husbands and eternal companions for our precious daughters than some young men who served a mission and yet remain selfish and petty. But the existence of exceptions does not invalidate the general rule.

I do not know your friend, but given your explanation of his condition, consider: His leaders told him he should serve a mission. Whether or not he personally felt the Spirit prompting him to do so, he was most certainly given that information under the authority from God. He chose to ignore it.

Such actions are the defining characteristic of the "cafeteria Mormon". Is that the sort of person you want YOUR daughter to date and marry -- someone who can conveniently dismiss counsel or commandment because he just doesn't feel the urge to comply?

They are supposed to qualify themselves to serve a mission. Part of that qualification is the turning of their hearts to God and submitting to his commandments and their own appointed duties -- including full-time missionary service.

Again, it is neither my place nor my intention to condemn anyone. But someone has to point out that the emperor has no clothes.

Vort sometimes i see your posts as so one sided. Like saying

"I do not know your friend, but given your explanation of his condition, consider: His leaders told him he should serve a mission. Whether or not he personally felt the Spirit prompting him to do so, he was most certainly given that information under the authority from God. He chose to ignore it.

Such actions are the defining characteristic of the "cafeteria Mormon". Is that the sort of person you want YOUR daughter to date and marry -- someone who can conveniently dismiss counsel or commandment because he just doesn't feel the urge to comply?"

The whole "is this a man you would want your daughter to marry/" is GARBAGE because i was inn a rough time of my life during that period.... Now i am a righteous active member of the church.... who am i do judge a man by his past... its rediculouse.. If a man has repented of his sins and changed his ways.... and is a good righteous man... and didnt serve a mission... Go ahead and date my daughter... because i know that person has changed...

[Backroads]

The whole "is this a man you would want your daughter to marry/" is GARBAGE because i was inn a rough time of my life during that period.... Now i am a righteous active member of the church.... who am i do judge a man by his past... its rediculouse.. If a man has repented of his sins and changed his ways.... and is a good righteous man... and didnt serve a mission... Go ahead and date my daughter... because i know that person has changed...

I don't believe Vort was referring to any young man who was struggling spiritually during the "mission period" of his life and later repented.

He was referring to a young man who claims to be a worthy member, who is more or less spiritual, who doesn't go on a mission because "he doesn't feel like it".

Big difference.

[Backroads]

I happen to see a difference between repentance and the mindset of "I'll repent of this later".

[Vort]

The whole "is this a man you would want your daughter to marry/" is GARBAGE because i was inn a rough time of my life during that period.... Now i am a righteous active member of the church.... who am i do judge a man by his past... its rediculouse.. If a man has repented of his sins and changed his ways.... and is a good righteous man... and didnt serve a mission... Go ahead and date my daughter... because i know that person has changed...

You are missing my point, friend. You are also missing my clear words:

It is neither my place nor my intention to condemn such young men; I am simply stating obvious, self-evident facts.

If Door #1 has an 80% chance of having a savage, man-eating lion behind it and Door #2 only a 20% chance, which do you take? I take Door #2 every time. So one chance in five gets me torn to shreds, but the other four chances in five don't.

Of course it's possible for a non-RM to be a perfectly decent man and a great option for a husband and father, just as it's possible for an RM to be a louse. But LOOK AT THE ODDS. Of those young men who refuse missionary service, how many later repent and come unto Christ? Some do, obviously. Wonderful. But are they 20%? 10%? 5%? Whatever the number, surely you recognize that it's bound to be less than among those young men who did perform their missionary duties.

You are taking this personally. I did not intend it personally. But as a father, I want my daughter to marry someone who treats her well, is utterly faithful to her, and will provide for her as best he can. All things considered, I think her odds are better in finding these things by dating RMs than not, and when the time comes, I will tell her so. But I will not forbid her from seeing non-RMs, and I will discuss the nuances of the issue. My kids seem to do a pretty good job of thinking for themselves, so I'm not too worried about her slavish devotion to my every word.

As for judging a man by his past: Ideally, we judge a man by what he is, not by what he was. But we are not God; we have no ability to look into a man's heart and mind. So how do we determine what a man is? Frankly, we determine it largely by looking at what he has done and the choices he has made -- that is, by looking at his past history. That may not always be fair, but it's often the best we can do.

[Backroads]

By not going on a mission, a young man might escape the stigma of "RM who isn't spiritual", but that's the only guarantee.

[Bini]

You are missing my point, friend. You are also missing my clear words:

It is neither my place nor my intention to condemn such young men; I am simply stating obvious, self-evident facts.

If Door #1 has an 80% chance of having a savage, man-eating lion behind it and Door #2 only a 20% chance, which do you take? I take Door #2 every time. So one chance in five gets me torn to shreds, but the other four chances in five don't.

As for judging a man by his past: Ideally, we judge a man by what he is, not by what he was. But we are not God; we have no ability to look into a man's heart and mind. So how do we determine what a man is? Frankly, we determine it largely by looking at what he has done and the choices he has made -- that is, by looking at his past history. That may not always be fair, but it's often the best we can do.

This was the point I was trying to make in the Once A Cheater--Always A Cheater thread. Absolutely, everyone has potential to change but that said, there is no fault in choosing NOT to date a man or woman that has a history of drug abuse, pornography or infidelity. While there are always exceptions, you should consider your odds, the likelihood of a chronic offender re-offending in comparison to someone who has not given into such temptations. Door #1 or door #2..

/hijack

[Ijustforgotit]

You are missing my point, friend. You are also missing my clear words:

It is neither my place nor my intention to condemn such young men; I am simply stating obvious, self-evident facts.

If Door #1 has an 80% chance of having a savage, man-eating lion behind it and Door #2 only a 20% chance, which do you take? I take Door #2 every time. So one chance in five gets me torn to shreds, but the other four chances in five don't.

Of course it's possible for a non-RM to be a perfectly decent man and a great option for a husband and father, just as it's possible for an RM to be a louse. But LOOK AT THE ODDS. Of those young men who refuse missionary service, how many later repent and come unto Christ? Some do, obviously. Wonderful. But are they 20%? 10%? 5%? Whatever the number, surely you recognize that it's bound to be less than among those young men who did perform their missionary duties.

You are taking this personally. I did not intend it personally. But as a father, I want my daughter to marry someone who treats her well, is utterly faithful to her, and will provide for her as best he can. All things considered, I think her odds are better in finding these things by dating RMs than not, and when the time comes, I will tell her so. But I will not forbid her from seeing non-RMs, and I will discuss the nuances of the issue. My kids seem to do a pretty good job of thinking for themselves, so I'm not too worried about her slavish devotion to my every word.

As for judging a man by his past: Ideally, we judge a man by what he is, not by what he was. But we are not God; we have no ability to look into a man's heart and mind. So how do we determine what a man is? Frankly, we determine it largely by looking at what he has done and the choices he has made -- that is, by looking at his past history. That may not always be fair, but it's often the best we can do.

I see your point... but what im saying is that we should not dismiss someone or even use the fact that they did not or did serve a mission as a defining factor of who that person really is inside

[Ijustforgotit]

and further more... if your not even giving someone a chance because they did not serve a mission its wrong IMO because the whole point of this thread was to address the fact that a good friend of mine who did not serve a mission because he had fallen away for a period of time. Is now fully active and righteous and looking for a potential spouse at ldssingles.com ... i can see if the person says ... i was active just didnt want to go on a mission.... but these women whho reject him dont even ask why... they just move on...and even if he said... yes i had fallen away from the church during that time frame now i am a fully active member... i assume some would still reject him

[Wingnut]

I see your point... but what im saying is that we should not dismiss someone or even use the fact that they did not or did serve a mission as a defining factor of who that person really is inside

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.

[Backroads]

I see your point... but what im saying is that we should not dismiss someone or even use the fact that they did not or did serve a mission as a defining factor of who that person really is inside

But I've yet to see a single person on this thread who has said the above in bolded.

[classylady]

Sorry, Ijustforgotit, but if I was back in the dating pool, I still would prefer a return missionary. But, that would not be the deciding factor, the man's character would be. Over 30 years ago I married a man who was not a return missionary. He's a wonderful man. He has a testimony--sort of. If I had to do it over again, I wouldn't have married him. I was so naive back then thinking that it didn't matter. In our particular case, it did matter. He simply isn't very spiritual, and i feel a mission would have helped him tremendously. He attends church, but I want more than a church goer. I want a husband who has a deep abiding testimony and follows through with scripture study, prayer, presides over family home evening, etc. He does none of that. He accepts his church callings, but does minimum with Home Teaching, etc. I think a mission would have helped him be a better priesthood holder.

[Vort]

Please don't ever tell your husband that.