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

[Backroads]

Besides, in this very thread we've seen where people (possibly erroneously) have advised young women to limit their dating pool to only RMs.

Which contributers to the thread? I've yet to see a single person on this thread say such a thing.

[Vort]

Which contributers to the thread? I've yet to see a single person on this thread say such a thing.

My thought exactly, but I didn't want to reread 100 posts to see where I had missed it.

[Backroads]

My thought exactly, but I didn't want to reread 100 posts to see where I had missed it.

If I get bored enough today I'll skim everything.

[Backroads]

The closest things I've been able to find on people saying "Only date RMs"

However, you will notice that none of the quotes actually say anything as solid as "Only date RMs". I kept the quotes in case anyone wants to examine the context of the quotes. In my boring Friday reading, I read it rather thoroughly and do not believe a single person believes RM should be a solitary standard.

However, I also believe there are very few excuses for not serving a mission....

So I believe the intended point of some of those lessons is for a young woman to find a worthy and righteous man. And a righteous young man will most likely want to serve a mission.

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.

And, if I'm ever in the position to date again, I would prefer to date a return missionary. I wouldn't rule out the possibility of a man who didn't serve a mission, but through my own experience, the majority of men I've met who didn't serve a mission, didn't serve because they opted for a life style that wasn't following Gospel principles. Even if they have repented for their past mistakes, there are still consequences from their past. Believe me, the baggage my husband has brought into our marriage, has made our marriage relationship very difficult--to say the least.

For me, I am thankful for young women who wouldn't marry a non-returned missionary, otherwise my father would have married another woman, and would have never met my mother. I wouldn't want any other mother in the world, other than my own mother.

For young men who chose not to serve a mission, if you come across a young woman who wants to marry a returned missionary (a standard she set for herself using her divine moral agency), then this is a consequence for a young men who didn't choose to serve will have to endure.

*These are solely the views of Anddenex.

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.

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.

Because males hold the priesthood, and priesthood includes an obligation to do everything in your power to proclaim 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.

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.

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.

I stand by my belief that not a single person on this thread supports the idea of telling young girls to date only RMs.

[unixknight]

Which contributers to the thread? I've yet to see a single person on this thread say such a thing.

Nobody here has counseled that, I'm talking about the anecdotes of YM leaders saying it.

[Backroads]

Next time, try being more specific.

[Misshalfway]

If we get any more specific, I think my eyeballs will pop out of my head.

[EarlJibbs]

Lots of good comments on here. I can honeslty tell you that I will be pitching something similar to my 2 daughters when they are older. I will them that RM is a great indicator of someone who will see hard times through, that should be able to place others before themselves and have a great foundation of gospel knowledge. But I will also tell them that their are plently of jerks that served missions.

Getting your foot in the door may be tough if you didnt serve a mission, but hey, do you want the first woman you talk to, to be ready for marrage. I say, if you found it hard to get a date, but eventually found a wife... WHO CARES?? Especially if you can think later on....hey, I am so glad all those ladies ignored me cuz I have a wonderful wife now.

In a parents roll, you bet I will be throwing out a slice of "Marry an RM" pie, but I definitely would not discourage anyone from dating or marrying someone that didnt. Although the reasons someone didnt I feel are important.

[Vort]

Nobody here has counseled that, I'm talking about the anecdotes of YM leaders saying it.

I assume you mean YW leaders. If the YM leaders are teaching it, our marriage rates will plummet (and/or we'll have a whole lot more sister missionaries).

[C_T_R]

My wife has recently told me a few things about what she was taught in young womens. They always taught her that she should set standards to marry return missionaries and least one lesson a month completely focused on that subject. I do not think this is wrong , but i believe its wrong when women wont give a good man a chance. even though this person may be an active righteous member of the church.

That is truly unfortunate if they're still teaching that. I know a lot of guys who served missions.. and don't take the gospel seriously.. and I know a lot of guys who didn't serve missions who are awesome (and vice versa)! That kind of thinking seems outdated to me.. and in fact, should have never been there in the first place.

I can honestly say I was never taught that in any of my classes in church. I can't agree with your thinking it's not wrong (agree to disagree). It IS wrong. That kind of teaching is NOT congruent with any aspect of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. That is why we attend church. Not to be told that our future husbands should have a mission on their resume or else they won't even be considered for the job. That kind of stuff really gets to me to hear about.. but again, I never was taught that.

[unixknight]

I assume you mean YW leaders. If the YM leaders are teaching it, our marriage rates will plummet (and/or we'll have a whole lot more sister missionaries).

Quite so!

[Guest ChristianJohn]

I love the words of Thomas S. Monson regarding resurrection of our beloved prophet Gordon B. Hinckley in this video Gordon B. Hinkley resurrected being appears to Thomas S. Monson shares a Miracle - YouTube

I know without a shadow of doubt that video is a true testimony.

[annewandering]

poor splicing job.

[Smeagums]

I didn't serve a mission although I always desired to do so. Roughly 6 months before I turned 19 my parents, who were/are sealed in the Temple, got divorced. I wouldn't say it shocked me yet the events leading up to it were naturally unpleasant. I was always a good kid with my share of problems but life did not get better after the divorce. It got much worse and for a long time! In fact I struggled more from that experience than anything else and I am stronger for it but honestly 7-8 years later it still makes me cry.

Meanwhile, I still visited the Bishop, actually a total of 4 during that time, and talked to each of them about serving. I was making mistakes but had a great desire to serve. I honestly felt like they wanted me to be perfect but I don't fault them. Maybe if my father was a bishop or served on a stake level? I'm not sure. The last bishop I saw, when I was 25, suggested to stop pursuing that course and get married to the only girlfriend, and now my wife, I've ever had! Her and I were married maybe 5-7 months later in the Temple.

I must admit that I do feel as the odd man out in my new elders quorum. No, they haven't caused this but naturally my own insecurities for having not served.

Truly it was a great desire of mine but I know assuredly that the opportunity will present itself again in the future in a different form.

I wanted to add a little FYI, during those long and hard years I was one of few siblings active in the Church, parents weren't very active, and had the opportunity to serve as a ward missionary and as a teacher for elders quorum. I never stopped going to Church nor lost my faith. I relied on the Savior for support during my struggles. I wasn't rebellious nor did I commit any sins that brought "baggage" into my marriage. My wife and I were both virgins when we were married. Maybe this bit was too much information but I think it is important for the topic.

Was this the outcome I had planned for? Yes, except for not having served but as a matter of fact this is between the Lord and I.

I also wanted to add that Uchtdorf didn't serve and Eyring served as a district missionary while stationed at an air base.

Despite this all, I will teach my boys that they should serve the Lord as missionaries.

Edited August 11, 2012 by Smeagums

[Guest Doctrine]

When I converted to the lds church I met a few girls that were nice and they said that they would only marry RMs and then askked me if i would serve a mission i said yes I will but i will only marry a RM when i get home, they got pretty mad, saying i cant say that and things like that, I said sure I can i can do anything I want, so when I got home i married a RM. two can play at that game, lol.

[ditd]

Surely H.F. has prepared our future spouse for us, who are we to choose whether he has prepared an RM or not?

We might be denying many blessings including our perfect partner and happiness by choosing otherwise...

[Dravin]

Surely H.F. has prepared our future spouse for us, who are we to choose whether he has prepared an RM or not?

Of course that logic could be extended -

Who are we to choose whether he prepared a cocaine addict or not?

Who are we to choose whether he prepared a child abuser or not?

Who are we to choose whether he prepared someone addicted to pornography or not?

Not that not having served a mission is comparable to those things but not everyone believes God picks someone he intends us to marry regardless of the choices they made in life (yes, I'm aware that not everyone has the option of serving). We are to choose because it is incumbent on us to prayerfully consider and seek out an individual with whom to share our life with in the manner of husband and wife. We may choose poorly of course (such as rejecting someone simply because they lacked the opportunity to serve), but you seem to be steering towards a doctrine of 'soul mates/the one' which is false in my opinion.

Edited August 23, 2012 by Dravin

[EarlJibbs]

Of course that logic could be extended -

Who are we to choose whether he prepared a cocaine addict or not?

Who are we to choose whether he prepared a child abuser or not?

Who are we to choose whether he prepared someone addicted to pornography or not?

Not that not having served a mission is comparable to those things but not everyone believes God picks someone he intends us to marry regardless of the choices they made in life (yes, I'm aware that not everyone has the option of serving). We are to choose because it is incumbent on us to prayerfully consider and seek out an individual with whom to share our life with in the manner of husband and wife. We may choose poorly of course (such as rejecting someone simply because they lacked the opportunity to serve), but you seem to be steering towards a doctrine of 'soul mates/the one' which is false in my opinion.

Well put in my opinion Dravin. I am super happily married. But I am in the firm belief that there is not just 1 person that we could ever be compatable with. I found someone amazing, I told my Heavenly Father that I wanted to be with her and asked if that was cool with him. Could this have been done with other girls? I am sure of it. To state that you have 1 person that you are pre-destined to be with seems a little manipulative. God is not always going to tell us if the left path or right path is the one to take... sometimes it can be whichever one WE want. We get a preference in all this. We cannot take our choice out of the equation.

[EarlJibbs]

Surely H.F. has prepared our future spouse for us, who are we to choose whether he has prepared an RM or not?

We might be denying many blessings including our perfect partner and happiness by choosing otherwise...

I think you are incorrect, we have the right to choose and should. Consulting with our Father in Heaven is not to say he chooses for us. Listen to his councel, but dont place everything on his lap for him to take care of. If someone doesnt want to marry someone that is not an RM, that is their choice. I dont beleive that will hold them up from getting to Heaven any more than someone that cannot go on a mission. One of those things that in the end... probably will not matter.

I had a choice to change employment a few years back. I prayed and asked which one was correct for me and my family. I received no such revelation as to which one I should choose. I asked the question differently, I prayed about each one individually and asked if my family would be taken care of if I chose to go with that particular job. I received a resounding yes for both and had the feeling that God was saying "I don't care. what do you want to do?".

There can be a lot of instances where there is no incorrect answer with your choices, including who will be your spouse. Whether you chose an RM or not... not important. Who that person is in their heart and how righteous they are? Very important.

[estradling75]

I would advise care in refuting the idea that Heavily Father prepared someone for a person.

Don't push so hard that it comes out that Heavily Father will never prepares someone for a person. Because this extreme is not true either. My wife had it revealed to her that I was the one she was suppose to marry the first time she saw me. It took me much longer to clue in to that fact. She was very much prepared. Still either one of us could have changed things had we acted (or not acted) differently.

I think the correct course of action is two fold. One be prayerful, so the Lord and push you in the right direction and Two be actively searching and making choices so that you can go in the right direction.

[ditd]

Who are we to choose whether he prepared a cocaine addict or not?

Who are we to choose whether he prepared a child abuser or not?

Who are we to choose whether he prepared someone addicted to pornography or not?

I think that is rather extreme to emphasize a point however given that the majority of YSA girls will be socializing and choosing from a pool of mainly worthy YSA guys, why should it effect their worthiness and ability to love as a husband if they are an RM?

Whether you chose an RM or not... not important. Who that person is in their heart and how righteous they are? Very important.

Sorry guys I think I may not have put my point across as clearly as I'd like (my communications skills are somewhat lacking in clarity)

I agree that there is probably more thank one person out there for all of us.

I also agree with your points about going out and finding them, such as EarlJibbs analogy to finding work.

In my Patriarchal Blessing i was told that HF had prepared somebody for me, hence why I fully believe he will deliver, although I don't think that it negates the work that I have to do to be worthy and search for her.

However I do feel that teaching Young Women that your husband should be an RM is a little heavy handed?

I struggle to get dates as a convert simply because I have not been a church member all of my life. I also struggle to get dates because I am not an RM, however I attend church, I serve as much as possible in my spare time and I serve my brothers & sisters around me at home, on the street or at work, does that mean that I am not as good as an RM?

To make a comparison, it all seems a little Harry Potter MudBloodish...

EDIT: most of my dates are with other converts of which I don't really have a problem with getting dates. I also don't have a problem getting dates with non-members however I try not to as it is my aim to be sealed to my partner in the temple

Edited August 23, 2012 by ditd

[Vort]

However I do feel that teaching Young Women that your husband should be an RM is a little heavy handed?

I think I may agree with you on this point. But is there anything wrong with teaching our young women the following?

"Make absolutely sure the man you marry is one who keeps his covenants and does his duty to the best of his ability. For example, all Priesthood holders have the duty of missionary work. Our leaders have made clear that young Priesthood holders should qualify themselves to serve missions. So serving a mission is one example of how a worthy Priesthood holder might honor his Priesthood and perform his duty. If a young LDS man refuses to serve a mission, that is an example of neglecting his duty, and unless he repents of that attitude and changes how he does things, it should be a red flag to any young LDS woman who dates him."

Admittedly, the bluntness I have used above is (in your words) "heavy-handed". But do you think the underlying concepts are wrong? When it comes time to teach your own precious daughter who to look for in a date and, eventually, a husband, will you not want to tell her this same basic truth?

I struggle to get dates as a convert simply because I have not been a church member all of my life. I also struggle to get dates because I am not an RM, however I attend church, I serve as much as possible in my spare time and I serve my brothers & sisters around me at home, on the street or at work, does that mean that I am not as good as an RM?

If you are doing your duty, then your non-RM status is meaningless. I suspect most reasonable young women understand this perfectly well. It is hardly reasonable to expect that someone who was not LDS during missionary age will have served a mission.

I don't share your background, so I am coming at this from a different perspective. I appreciate how it might come across as "mud-bloodish", and I concede that there are probably members who actually think and even speak in such a mindset. That is unfortunate and regrettable.

How do you teach important truths like, "Date and marry people who keep their commitments" without inspiring the judgmentalism you decry? I don't know how to do it. In the end, I think we have no other choice but to "teach them correct principles and [let them] govern themselves".

[EarlJibbs]

I would advise care in refuting the idea that Heavily Father prepared someone for a person.

Don't push so hard that it comes out that Heavily Father will never prepares someone for a person. Because this extreme is not true either. My wife had it revealed to her that I was the one she was suppose to marry the first time she saw me. It took me much longer to clue in to that fact. She was very much prepared. Still either one of us could have changed things had we acted (or not acted) differently.

I think the correct course of action is two fold. One be prayerful, so the Lord and push you in the right direction and Two be actively searching and making choices so that you can go in the right direction.

Thanks Estradling. I dont necessarily refute the idead that someone is not prepared. I have the thought that Heavenly Father knows us, knows what can be good for us and introduces people to us that CAN work. Now if you are not paying attention and you pass one up are you blowing your eternal happiness? I think not. Pre-ordination is not in everything and may not be in marriage. If everything were pre-oradained, then that doesnt sound like the plan of happiness.

There was a talk in conference that I heard (I cannot recall who and my search thus far has not produced the exact quote so forgive me referring to it) he said that you could basically take any righteous man and woman and pare them up and it should work. What I did find is this story from an ensign in 2010 that seems to second my thoughts. It is your decision. There can be a good, better, best decision in choosing whom we will marry.

It says

"Choosing Love

During the two years I dated my husband, Jon, I prayed often about marrying him, but I never got an awe-inspiring answer that so many others seemed to talk about. I had heard so many of those stories that I was afraid marrying Jon wasn’t right unless I had a miraculous confirmation experience too.

I was also weighing a decision about serving a mission. I proceeded with the process of putting in my papers and met with my bishop. He asked about my relationship with Jon. The bishop suggested that if I was OK with Jon marrying another girl, then I should move forward with serving a mission. If I was not OK with his being with someone else, then maybe I should reconsider.

I spent a lot of time thinking about that counsel. I knew I loved Jon, but I didn’t want to give up other good opportunities. As I was praying over the matter one day, I received the distinct impression through a feeling: “It’s your choice.” As unromantic as it may sound, that answer was exactly what I needed. Of course it had always been my choice, but this prompting reminded me that I didn’t need to wait for earth-shattering, divine intervention to tell me to marry Jon; I knew we were compatible, I knew I loved him, and I knew marrying him would be a good thing. All that was left was for me to make the choice.

“If it’s my choice,” I thought, “then I choose him.” It was hard to give up the opportunity of a mission, but from that moment on, I was committed, and we started planning for marriage.

I still had occasional doubts and fears, but because I had made the choice to marry Jon, I also had made the choice to help things work out."

As far as discriminating against anyone that is not an RM... I will not tell my own daughters when they are old enough that they should not marry a non-RM. But I will teach them the importance of YM going on missions and to seek those that honor their priesthood duties.

[Dravin]

I think that is rather extreme to emphasize a point however given that the majority of YSA girls will be socializing and choosing from a pool of mainly worthy YSA guys, why should it effect their worthiness and ability to love as a husband if they are an RM?

A very relevant question, more so than, "Who are we to decide whom we should marry?" Something to keep in mind when you contemplate the answer though is that not all reasons for not marrying someone boil down to worthiness and ability to love. Meaning that generically speaking, the answer can be that something doesn't effect worthiness or ability to love as a spouse but is still something selected against. For example, being a dog person who can't stand cats doesn't effect worthiness but an avid cat lover may steer clear of you. Or say someone who is an avid camper passing over the person who doesn't even like walking on a lawn.

[Sunnysprite]

This topic has come up a few times in my circle of friends and family.

I think it's extremely narrow-minded and wrong to automatically exclude any non-RM outright. (I have very strong feelings on this, and hopefully this post will clarify why.)

I do not believe that every single person is called to serve a mission. I just don't. This should be obvious by how the system works. Serving a mission is not a one size fits all calling. That being the case, then logically it would mean that the percentage of faithful LDS members who have served on a mission will always be something less than 100%.

Now, every single member of the church IS expected to get married at some point and rise a family. If all young women in the church followed the advice to only date RMs, then essentially, not going on a mission is like sentencing oneself to a single life... or to be forced to date outside the church. I find it hard to believe this is the intended result.

I have a good friend who didn't serve a mission. Is he not "good enough" to be of interest to an LDS woman? He works hard, is educated, has a good job, and has a lot to offer. Nevertheless, there are people in our church who would say he's not dating material because he didn't feel the Lord called him to serve a mission.

What are guys supposed to do? Go on a mission whether they feel called by the Spirit to do so or not? Is that really a good idea?

If I have one Hot Button issue with Mormonisism, it is that one. I will never serve a mission, though for women, the dogma is not there. I've had to struggle with what felt like a sort of caste system in the church, but right now it's not bothering me. I'll never be one of the special ones, but I am good enough to pay my tithe.