Fallout from the new missionary ages

[carlimac]

I ran into this blog yesterday-

Ask Mormon Girl

Look for the post on her feelings about the missionary changes. I'm wondering if anyone has the same reaction I did.

[Leah]

I definitely had a reaction...just don't know if it was the same as yours.

[Wingnut]

I think it's very well written, and that she crafted an accurate story with her narrative. I also agree with her. The Brethren may hope that this change eventually lowers the average marriage age, but I think it may also create a new generation of Mormon feminists. Whether or not the average marriage age drops, I hope that the women that get married in their early 20s are stronger and more prepared for having been able to serve a mission.

[Wingnut]

I also recognize that many (if not most) Mormon women (especially of the Utah variety) aren't big fans of Joanna Brooks.

[Vort]

I ran into this blog yesterday-

Ask Mormon Girl

Look for the post on her feelings about the missionary changes. I'm wondering if anyone has the same reaction I did.

I felt briefly like throwing up, and vividly remembered why I assiduously avoid anything tainted by the touch of Joanna Brooks. Is that what you meant?

[carlimac]

I thought I *might* be a fan of Joanna Brooks (almost bought her book) till I read this. I can understand regret for missed opportunities but in this blog she is, in a slightly obscure and backhanded way, slapping our previous church leaders for supposedly snatching away her chance to serve a mission and steering her instead to early marriage which was a waste of her spiritual energy. It just gets me so fired up because it's such an insult to the girls who got married young and are actually happy (gasp) with their lives. Its an insult and offensive to the many girls who kept themselves busy in productive activities for three years (apparently just too darn long for Joanna), then went on a mission but still have not married even years after serving. It's an insult to the many husbands who married those young brides who are now so sad and remourseful that THEY didn't get to go on a mission but were coerced into marriage at 19 or 20. (Give me a break!) "Kissing these returned missionaries is like kissing your father" Really?? I'm sorry but that is just disgusting.

I'm sorry (not really) to anyone who thinks of themselves as a feminist, but I see this movement as a big production for whiney women who have no self esteem and need a loudmouth to prop them up and a scapegoat to blame their failures on.

[carlimac]

I think it's very well written, and that she crafted an accurate story with her narrative. I also agree with her. The Brethren may hope that this change eventually lowers the average marriage age, but I think it may also create a new generation of Mormon feminists. Whether or not the average marriage age drops, I hope that the women that get married in their early 20s are stronger and more prepared for having been able to serve a mission.

What does this change have to do with lowering the marriage age? Funny, I thought this was more about getting more missionaries out to spread the gospel. Wow, I totally missed that it was just a cover for getting girls married earlier.

[MorningStar]

I cried when I heard the news both because I was happy for the girls and because I wanted to go on a mission so bad right after high school. I felt like if it was so important to share the Gospel, wouldn't more missionaries be even better? Ah, well.

I don't think this will lower the marriage age. I think it will be a relief though for women because they won't be thinking as much that maybe they would have met their husband if they hadn't gone on their mission. I didn't feel ready to get married until I was 21.

[talisyn]

huh. When I was 18 a mission was about the last thing on my mind..

[Wingnut]

"Kissing these returned missionaries is like kissing your father" Really?? I'm sorry but that is just disgusting.

That it's disgusting is entirely her point. She's talking about 18-year-old girls who date 24-year-old (or older) men. Once you're a year or two into your 20s, that age difference isn't really a big deal, but at 18, most women are still girls.

I'm sorry (not really) to anyone who thinks of themselves as a feminist, but I see this movement as a big production for whiney women who have no self esteem and need a loudmouth to prop them up and a scapegoat to blame their failures on.

I think Joanna's point is that the lowered age might help promote self-esteem. Many LDS women who serve missions do it because they haven't gotten married yet, so they might as well. Many LDS young women, for generations, have planned to serve missions if they aren't married yet. Now they can make it a part of their life plan without considering marriage as something that might happen first. Joanna is speaking of the LDS women who feel that their worth is tied to finding a suitable husband. It's not an unrealistic point of view. It's a cultural one, not a doctrinal one, to be sure, but it's there, and it's hard to deny that. Those (potential future) women will now have a better opportunity to experience a concentrated maturation, the same way boys do when they are sent into the mission field. And they will learn to stand on their own and know that they are of worth just as they are.

What does this change have to do with lowering the marriage age? Funny, I thought this was more about getting more missionaries out to spread the gospel. Wow, I totally missed that it was just a cover for getting girls married earlier.

Wow, I totally missed that I said it was just a cover for getting girls married earlier.

[Guest Doctrine]

I started to get weepy when i saw how happy the girls were in the Audience at GC i could feel their joy.

My wife said she would have been better off serving at 19 instead of 21 but she was happy to wait since we could have never met, i said, that would have be a god sent, boy was i in trouble, now i now what foot in mouth disease is now.

[Just_A_Guy]

I think there's an idea that since female rms tend to be a little more liberal, a higher proportion of female rms will create a higher proportion of Mormon feminists. The issue with that is, the age difference in the prior system may have caused the pool of sister missionaries to skew leftwards because women going on missions were the women who had pursued education or other priorities rather than the conservative norm of marriage.

Contrary to creating a new generation of Mormon feminists, this move may create a corps of conservative Mormon women who can hold their own emotionally, theologically, and educationally against the Mormon feminists who have hitherto looked down their noses at those who have "demeaned themselves" by opting for marriage and motherhood.

As for Brooks: I pity her. Over the past few years she has put herself into the role of mother confessor to disaffected Mormons. They haven't come to her looking for introspection, or to entertain the notion that maybe the Church is actually right every once in a while. Brooks couldn't defend the Church to them even if she wanted to. All she can do is empathize, and I've got to hand it to her - she does it beautifully.

[Anddenex]

That it's disgusting is entirely her point. She's talking about 18-year-old girls who date 24-year-old (or older) men. Once you're a year or two into your 20s, that age difference isn't really a big deal, but at 18, most women are still girls.

Hehe, my wife was 19 and I 23 when we got married, I don't believe when kissing me she ever thought it was like kissing her father.

My goodness the way she kissed me if she thought I was her father...., why didn't I runaway then??

This is one of those writing skills where people input in their writing just for shock value and to lead people incorrectly.

[MorningStar]

The article was pretty dramatic and silly. I just simply wanted to go on a mission as soon as humanly possible, but knew I would choose marriage if I met the right guy.

[Guest]

When DH and I met, I was 19 and he was 24. I liked making out with him then almost as much as I do now.

[Leah]

I thought I *might* be a fan of Joanna Brooks (almost bought her book) till I read this. I can understand regret for missed opportunities but in this blog she is, in a slightly obscure and backhanded way, slapping our previous church leaders for supposedly snatching away her chance to serve a mission and steering her instead to early marriage which was a waste of her spiritual energy. It just gets me so fired up because it's such an insult to the girls who got married young and are actually happy (gasp) with their lives. Its an insult and offensive to the many girls who kept themselves busy in productive activities for three years (apparently just too darn long for Joanna), then went on a mission but still have not married even years after serving. It's an insult to the many husbands who married those young brides who are now so sad and remourseful that THEY didn't get to go on a mission but were coerced into marriage at 19 or 20. (Give me a break!) "Kissing these returned missionaries is like kissing your father" Really?? I'm sorry but that is just disgusting.

I'm sorry (not really) to anyone who thinks of themselves as a feminist, but I see this movement as a big production for whiney women who have no self esteem and need a loudmouth to prop them up and a scapegoat to blame their failures on.

Well put.

And I was really put off by may of the comments. For example, the poster who blames the church for the fact that she married an abusive man at the age of 19 because a mission was not an option. Really? Just because a mission was not an option, her only choice was to marry? And to marry an abusive man? She had no say in that? I did the same thing at 19. Who do I get to blame since I wasn't' a member at the time?

[Vort]

"Kissing these returned missionaries is like kissing your father" Really?? I'm sorry but that is just disgusting.

And offensive to those Daddies who enjoy our daughters' kisses.

[MorningStar]

huh. When I was 18 a mission was about the last thing on my mind..

I went on splits all the time back then. Loved it!

[slamjet]

I really don't get it, possibly because I'm dense. But what's with all this lamenting in her posting? It really sounds like a real whine-fest "whoa is me" kind of dribble. Besides, am I the only one who's first thought was "cool, now my daughters have a way to be ready and grounded in the gospel before the age of 21 and marriage?"

[carlimac]

That it's disgusting is entirely her point. She's talking about 18-year-old girls who date 24-year-old (or older) men. Once you're a year or two into your 20s, that age difference isn't really a big deal, but at 18, most women are still girls.

I think Joanna's point is that the lowered age might help promote self-esteem. Many LDS women who serve missions do it because they haven't gotten married yet, so they might as well. Many LDS young women, for generations, have planned to serve missions if they aren't married yet. Now they can make it a part of their life plan without considering marriage as something that might happen first. Joanna is speaking of the LDS women who feel that their worth is tied to finding a suitable husband. It's not an unrealistic point of view. It's a cultural one, not a doctrinal one, to be sure, but it's there, and it's hard to deny that. Those (potential future) women will now have a better opportunity to experience a concentrated maturation, the same way boys do when they are sent into the mission field. And they will learn to stand on their own and know that they are of worth just as they are.

Wow, I totally missed that I said it was just a cover for getting girls married earlier.

The comparison is disgusting, not the kissing. I did at 19 and no it was nothing at all like kissing my dad. (Not that I would even know what that's like. Does she?) See what I mean?

So does that mean 19 yr old girls should tie their self worth to serving a mission? That may come as a result of faithful service, but to GO on a mission to improve or simply to prove your self worth (as it seems was Joanna's motive) is the completely wrong motivation. No, girls should NOT go on a mission if that's what they're after. They'll be terrible missionaries and probably blown away by how hard a mission is.

I think these women who never served have somehow glorified a mission in their minds. They really have no idea what a grueling experience it is. It seems from her blog that Joanna sees a mission as all about preaching and knowing your scriptures and going at it aggressively ("Coach put me in") and converting the world. I think she'd be dismayed at how few people would respond to that approach. Some would but only defensively. Some would enjoy a bible bash with her and they'd no doubt win.

You said, "The Brethren may hope that this change eventually lowers the average marriage age" What did you mean by that? Why would they hope that? Isn't it low enough already. According to Joanna Brooks it's too low. It seems that, if anything, a by-product of the change might be just the opposite. Girls getting married after the age of 21. But I don't believe that's the reason for this change. I think it's simply to give more sister missionaries the opportunity to help with the work.

[carlimac]

I think there's an idea that since female rms tend to be a little more liberal, a higher proportion of female rms will create a higher proportion of Mormon feminists. The issue with that is, the age difference in the prior system may have caused the pool of sister missionaries to skew leftwards because women going on missions were the women who had pursued education or other priorities rather than the conservative norm of marriage.

Contrary to creating a new generation of Mormon feminists, this move may create a corps of conservative Mormon women who can hold their own emotionally, theologically, and educationally against the Mormon feminists who have hitherto looked down their noses at those who have "demeaned themselves" by opting for marriage and motherhood.

As for Brooks: I pity her. Over the past few years she has put herself into the role of mother confessor to disaffected Mormons. They haven't come to her looking for introspection, or to entertain the notion that maybe the Church is actually right every once in a while. Brooks couldn't defend the Church to them even if she wanted to. All she can do is empathize, and I've got to hand it to her - she does it beautifully.

OK wait a minute. I went on a mission. I'm pretty darn conservative. So were most of my companions. I knew of a few of the liberal sisters. They were edgy and sarcastic. (And some way out of the Church by now)

I think that if the motive for lowering the age is to "create a corps of conservative Mormon women who can hold their own emotionally, theologically, and educationally against the Mormon feminists" it's the wrong move. Women can be that without going on a mission. That's my argument. If that's the goal, then all women need to work harder every day. Not just during a mission which is such a small window of time in our lives. A mission is a time to serve. Yes it helps to be well versed in the scriptures/doctrine/ theology, but we all know it isn't the knowledge ( beyond the basics) we have that converts. It's the Spirit. It's the love we radiate from our souls.

I may be wrong on this but all the women I know who went on missions and loved it didn't come home raving about their increased gospel knowledge. It was all about the love they gained for people and incredible positive changes that they saw happen in the lives of people they taught. Even my sons (one who is out right now and one home a year) who are both pretty scholarly don't/didn't talk about their gospel study much. It is/was all about what they learned from people humbly changing their lives for the better.

After all the Lord only requires from us a broken heart and a contrite spirit. Not a full and robust knowledge of gospel doctrine.

And yes, I agree with you about Brooks. I feel she is preying on vulnerable and insecure women whether she knows it or not. They are her platform. They are the ones who respond and boost her ego. You can read it in their comments. "Oh golly, I never knew what was bothering me. Thank you Joanna for pointing out this flaw in the Church." (rolling my eyes)

Edited October 10, 2012 by carlimac

[Wingnut]

You said, "The Brethren may hope that this change eventually lowers the average marriage age" What did you mean by that?

I meant exactly what I said. I did not mean that I think the change is just a cover, as you suggested I meant.

Why would they hope that? Isn't it low enough already.

Not according to the Brethren. The last several conferences have included numerous mentions of the marriage age in the Church being on the rise, and expressions of concern about it.

According to Joanna Brooks it's too low. It seems that, if anything, a by-product of the change might be just the opposite. Girls getting married after the age of 21.

Perhaps in Utah the norm is still for girls to get married at 18, 19, or 20 years old. That's not the norm anymore outside The Bubble, though. Getting married later means delaying the blessings of a temple sealing. It means delaying having children. It means smaller families. All of these are things over which the Brethren have expressed concern. Many women wait until they're older to get married because they do want to serve missions first. That means that the earliest they can marry is at 22.5, though most wait until they've been home more than three months. With the starting age now being 19, they can get married earlier AND serve a mission. Everyone wins.

But I don't believe that's the reason for this change. I think it's simply to give more sister missionaries the opportunity to help with the work.

I don't doubt that is the biggest part of it. I just think there are some byproducts that the Brethren will never say out loud.

[carlimac]

And offensive to those Daddies who enjoy our daughters' kisses.

On the cheek I hope. And honestly, who kisses their date on the cheek?

[carlimac]

I meant exactly what I said. I did not mean that I think the change is just a cover, as you suggested I meant.

Not according to the Brethren. The last several conferences have included numerous mentions of the marriage age in the Church being on the rise, and expressions of concern about it.

Perhaps in Utah the norm is still for girls to get married at 18, 19, or 20 years old. That's not the norm anymore outside The Bubble, though. Getting married later means delaying the blessings of a temple sealing. It means delaying having children. It means smaller families. All of these are things over which the Brethren have expressed concern. Many women wait until they're older to get married because they do want to serve missions first. That means that the earliest they can marry is at 22.5, though most wait until they've been home more than three months. With the starting age now being 19, they can get married earlier AND serve a mission. Everyone wins.

I don't doubt that is the biggest part of it. I just think there are some byproducts that the Brethren will never say out loud.

Fair enough. But your last statement sounds to me like it's a cover.

[Wingnut]

Fair enough. But your last statement sounds to me like it's a cover.

There was a lot of talk about opportunities for education and service, but not a lot of talk about revelation. I'm not saying it wasn't inspired, because I think it was. I just think that there's more to it than just the surface. And I'm fine with that. I don't have a problem with it. I don't care what the reason(s) is/are for lowering the age. I'm just really happy that more women will have opportunities to serve. I know what an important and life-changing experience a mission was for me.

Edited October 10, 2012 by Wingnut
typo