Missionary age: How does this change things in your family?

[Misshalfway]

What a huge change!! Betcha the numbers of sister missionaries doubles overnight. :)

I remember back in the day, one of my girlfriends petitioned the local leaders to let her go at 19. That was in 1989. All I could hear her say was..."It's about time!" :)

I'm really glad that Pres. Monson said that while this opportunity to go at 18 is there that it might not be right for everyone to go that early. Sometimes I think we get so stuck on the number and it stops us from being ok with acting in wisdom.

[tcage]

Ernest Wilkinson, former president of BYU, once said in a commencement address:

"As to the single men, I need merely to repeat the admonition attributed to Brigham Young, "Every man not married and over twenty-five is a menace to the community." I asked Dr. Lyman Tyler yesterday if he would document this for me, but he said he had been trying to document it for years; he had given up, so you will have to accept it either on faith, or as apocryphal."

Of course, life expectancy in BY's time was only about 50-60years. (Probably less among LDS males cause of the rigors of moving and living in the unincorporated West, and the Americans constantly trying to exterminate them), so a 25yr old man had already hit "middle-age"

To put that in today's context, a man wouldn't be a "menace" until he's over 40 (considering life expectancy of close to 80). To tout Pres. Young's statement today put an unfair label on single men

[Guest]

Of course, life expectancy in BY's time was only about 50-60years. (Probably less among LDS males cause of the rigors of moving and living in the unincorporated West, and the Americans constantly trying to exterminate them), so a 25yr old man had already hit "middle-age"

To put that in today's context, a man wouldn't be a "menace" until he's over 40 (considering life expectancy of close to 80). To tout Pres. Young's statement today put an unfair label on single men

You mean the statement attributed to Brigham Young that can't be documented or verified?

[Just_A_Guy]

You mean the statement attributed to Brigham Young that can't be documented or verified?

It was actually George Q. Cannon:

Our boys, when they arrive at years of maturity and can take earn of a wife, should get married, and there should not be a lot of young men growing up in our midst who ought to be, but are not married. While I do not make the remark to apply to individual cases, I am firmly of the opinion that a large number of unmarried men, over the age of twenty-four years, is a dangerous element in any community, and an element upon which society should look with a jealous eye. For every man knowing himself, knows how his fellow-man is constituted; and if men do not marry, they are too apt to do something worse. Then, brethren, encourage our young men to marry, and see that they are furnished employment, so that they can marry. (Journal of Discourses, vol. 20, p.7)

[Guest]

a large number of unmarried men, over the age of twenty-four years, is a dangerous element in any community

(Bolded mine.) How did that ever get twisted into any one single man over a certain age being a menace to society?

[Vort]

Of course, life expectancy in BY's time was only about 50-60years. (Probably less among LDS males cause of the rigors of moving and living in the unincorporated West, and the Americans constantly trying to exterminate them), so a 25yr old man had already hit "middle-age"

You appear to have missed my point. You might want to go back and read the quote I provided.

To put that in today's context, a man wouldn't be a "menace" until he's over 40 (considering life expectancy of close to 80).

I think your math is off. Accepting your idea of the ratio of age/lifespan being the important factor and also accepting your lifespan estimates at face value (neither of which I accept, by the way):

Brigham Young's time:

25/50 = 0.5

25/60 = 0.471

Range: 47% - 50% of lifespan

Today (lifespan of 79 years):

79 * 47% = 32

79 * 50% = 39.5

So that suggests that, if we accepted your parameters, the current "menace 2 society" age would be mid-30s, not 40.

[dahlia]

It was actually George Q. Cannon:

Our boys, when they arrive at years of maturity and can take earn of a wife, should get married, and there should not be a lot of young men growing up in our midst who ought to be, but are not married. While I do not make the remark to apply to individual cases, I am firmly of the opinion that a large number of unmarried men, over the age of twenty-four years, is a dangerous element in any community, and an element upon which society should look with a jealous eye. ... (Journal of Discourses, vol. 20, p.7)

OK, so what they're talking about is large numbers of unmarried men, not that the individual guy is some kind of menace at 25. I am going to say this - the black community needs this kind of encouragement. Too many young black guys are single, fathers, living off of women or crime or small time jobs. If you know your 'baby mama' can get welfare and you can hang around her place, what is the encouragement for marriage? Why work hard for a career when most of your 'family's' needs are taken care of by the state? Unfortunately, marriage seems to be a lost art amongst many blacks. Thank you, Pres Johnson and the Great Society.

Maybe the Church should try a real missionary push in parts of the black community and try to help bring back pride and manliness to its men via the priesthood.

[skippy740]

We're working on that... one-on-one, one-by-one. But before they can be embraced in the gospel, we've got to help them deal with the history of the church and how they may be treated at church. (I still hear various stories, and it hurts to hear them.)

[dahlia]

We're working on that... one-on-one, one-by-one. But before they can be embraced in the gospel, we've got to help them deal with the history of the church and how they may be treated at church. (I still hear various stories, and it hurts to hear them.)

I get two responses from blacks when my membership comes up:

1) "I didn't know there were black Mormons." This person is actually curious and is willing to hear about the Church.

2) "You know they wouldn't let blacks be priests, right?" This person has an agenda and wants to argue. If the Communist Party hadn't let blacks be comrades until 1978, they'd be arguing about that.

[skippy740]

Just direct them here: In The News | BlacksInTheScriptures.com and they may have various questions answered by the DVD set that's online.

At least it will help remove the perceived doctrinal barriers that gives them a little more comfort in deciding to learn more.

[tcage]

You appear to have missed my point. You might want to go back and read the quote I provided.

I think your math is off. Accepting your idea of the ratio of age/lifespan being the important factor and also accepting your lifespan estimates at face value (neither of which I accept, by the way):

Brigham Young's time:

25/50 = 0.5

25/60 = 0.471

Range: 47% - 50% of lifespan

Today (lifespan of 79 years):

79 * 47% = 32

79 * 50% = 39.5

So that suggests that, if we accepted your parameters, the current "menace 2 society" age would be mid-30s, not 40.

First off 47% of 79 would be 37.1, not 32....

To be honest, I didn't look up the hard math because I wasn't prepared to write a sociology paper tonight or anything (tho I have in the past on life expectancy and marriage patterns), merely to make a point. I do know the life expectancy in Canada is approx. 81, so I used "close to 80" as it would be an educated estimate (LE for males tends to be a tad lower, plus i'm also assuming it is a little lower for Americans)

I also know 50-60 is an approximation for the mid-1800s, which obviously records are spotty for (and would have a lot of outliers, making it harder to make a "fair" estimate). So I stand by my comments.

You appear to have missed my point. You might want to go back and read the quote I provided.

Not at all. I have no quibbles for or against your point. I was speaking to the infamous "menace to society" quote that was contained in your reference. It's long been a bane of contention for me in the church (and the broader issue of the perception of single males in society in general)

[tcage]

2) "You know they wouldn't let blacks be priests, right?" This person has an agenda and wants to argue. If the Communist Party hadn't let blacks be comrades until 1978, they'd be arguing about that.

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

[Vort]

First off 47% of 79 would be 37.1, not 32....

My bad for copying the percentage wrong. Should be 41.7%, not 47%.

I also know 50-60 is an approximation for the mid-1800s, which obviously records are spotty for (and would have a lot of outliers, making it harder to make a "fair" estimate). So I stand by my comments.

The main problem with your argument is not a math error. The main problem is the assumption that men become a "menace to society" because they reach 40% (or whatever) of their expected lifespan. It would actually make a lot more sense to argue that, since men go through puberty earlier now than in the mid-1800s, they become a menace to society earlier, not later, if they remain unmarried.

Not at all. I have no quibbles for or against your point. I was speaking to the infamous "menace to society" quote that was contained in your reference. It's long been a bane of contention for me in the church (and the broader issue of the perception of single males in society in general)

Then you really should go back and reread my initial quote.

[Wingnut]

OK, so what they're talking about is large numbers of unmarried men, not that the individual guy is some kind of menace at 25. I am going to say this - the black community needs this kind of encouragement. Too many young black guys are single, fathers, living off of women or crime or small time jobs. If you know your 'baby mama' can get welfare and you can hang around her place, what is the encouragement for marriage? Why work hard for a career when most of your 'family's' needs are taken care of by the state? Unfortunately, marriage seems to be a lost art amongst many blacks. Thank you, Pres Johnson and the Great Society.

Maybe the Church should try a real missionary push in parts of the black community and try to help bring back pride and manliness to its men via the priesthood.

That's all really unfortunate, especially considering the numbers that MOE shares in this post: http://www.lds.net/forums/marriage-relationship-advice/49257-husband-unmotivated-work-attend-school-church.html#post703985

I live in a suburb of Cleveland, OH, just barely outside of East Cleveland, which is...less than savory. In the five years that I have been here, there have been (that I can remember) four baptisms of black men into my ward. One is a father, married with about 10 children (same mom). That family showed a lot of promise, but in the over two years since they started attending church, he's the only one that has been baptized, and he's not even active now. Another was an older gentleman, late 50s probably, who has been faithful and diligent in attending church and living the Gospel, including getting a new job that didn't require him to work on Sundays. The other two were younger, and are both currently serving missions. My husband and I area pleased to see this type of growth, because we recognize that in order for the black community in our area to more fully come into the Gospel, they need to first have role models they can feel comfortable with. We need strong black Priesthood holders in this area. We have lot of older widows, but no Priesthood who can be the future leaders here. But we hope and pray that in 10-15 years, there will be a strong (if perhaps still small) younger black LDS population in our area.