LDS Freedom Forum

mirkwood wrote: ↑March 27th, 2019, 3:39 pm

5tev3 wrote: ↑March 27th, 2019, 3:28 pm We were talking about these rumors the other day with my family and apparently, a young man my father-in-law knows recently served a full mission for the period of 2 transfers and was then sent home honorably. It does seem like they are piloting shorter missions. They were a bit confused because there was no explanation for this.

You can come home early for a variety of medical issues and receive an honorable release.

And you can roll over into a service mission for the remaining time. It is encouraged, but not mandatory.

5tev3 wrote: ↑March 27th, 2019, 3:28 pm We were talking about these rumors the other day with my family and apparently, a young man my father-in-law knows recently served a full mission for the period of 2 transfers and was then sent home honorably. It does seem like they are piloting shorter missions. They were a bit confused because there was no explanation for this.

Based on our conversation there was speculation that the church may be moving away from set mission durations of 18 months or 2 years and maybe calling people for specified amounts of time tailored to the individual, their circumstances, the mission circumstances, and what kind of mission they will be on.

This would provide greater flexibility in many ways. There are definitely missions that have been piloting some things and it is just a matter of time before there are more changes in this regard.

Notice that we have been moving away from these big, broad brush approaches to solving things in the church, such as ministering. Everything is becoming more individualized which I think is good in many respects.

Or perhaps there will be areas of focus. No doubt President Nelson knows where to focus efforts if the gathering is indeed the top priority now.

I found a call to a sister that may be legitimate, 24 months, not 18. Saw this on twitter just now and looks authentic. Guy that posted it said it’s the friend of his son and his son was present when she opened the call.

Maybe SouEu can shed some light on this, given they work in the missionary department. Are there cases where the wrong template was used for a call or will sisters now be called to 24 months?

kgrigio wrote: ↑March 30th, 2019, 11:02 am I found a call to a sister that may be legitimate, 24 months, not 18. Saw this on twitter just now and looks authentic. Guy that posted it said it’s the friend of his son and his son was present when she opened the call.

532BA877-3299-4FD7-B6F0-0AA5E0103CA9.jpeg

The date on the letter is March 29, 2019 - that was just yesterday. So we're supposed to believe the letter was generated AND mailed from SLC yesterday, and has already arrived in the hands of the addressee, less than 24 hours after the letter was generated - and has been opened and announced and put on Twitter for all the world to see? Not buying it. They really should have back-dated it a few more days at least. So either the addressee lives next door to Church HQ and the letter was hand-delivered to her (because no post office is that fast) - or this is a fraud (like most letters posted on LDSFF lately...).

EmmaLee wrote: ↑March 30th, 2019, 11:56 am

kgrigio wrote: ↑March 30th, 2019, 11:02 am I found a call to a sister that may be legitimate, 24 months, not 18. Saw this on twitter just now and looks authentic. Guy that posted it said it’s the friend of his son and his son was present when she opened the call.

532BA877-3299-4FD7-B6F0-0AA5E0103CA9.jpeg

The date on the letter is March 29, 2019 - that was just yesterday. So we're supposed to believe the letter was generated AND mailed from SLC yesterday, and has already arrived in the hands of the addressee, less than 24 hours after the letter was generated - and has been opened and announced and put on Twitter for all the world to see? Not buying it. They really should have back-dated it a few more days at least. So either the addressee lives next door to Church HQ and the letter was hand-delivered to her (because no post office is that fast) - or this is a fraud (like most letters posted on LDSFF lately...).

Al mission calls are by email right now. So, it could be true.

Also, we can all see her name through the marker. Not much of a stretch that someone could find Sister J. Woolley and ask her.

I never understood why they didn't make the age and time out to mission equal for both men and women. Every time it just seems like the women are the ones getting ripped off. In some form or fashion.

Michelle wrote: ↑March 30th, 2019, 12:19 pm

EmmaLee wrote: ↑March 30th, 2019, 11:56 am

kgrigio wrote: ↑March 30th, 2019, 11:02 am I found a call to a sister that may be legitimate, 24 months, not 18. Saw this on twitter just now and looks authentic. Guy that posted it said it’s the friend of his son and his son was present when she opened the call.

532BA877-3299-4FD7-B6F0-0AA5E0103CA9.jpeg

The date on the letter is March 29, 2019 - that was just yesterday. So we're supposed to believe the letter was generated AND mailed from SLC yesterday, and has already arrived in the hands of the addressee, less than 24 hours after the letter was generated - and has been opened and announced and put on Twitter for all the world to see? Not buying it. They really should have back-dated it a few more days at least. So either the addressee lives next door to Church HQ and the letter was hand-delivered to her (because no post office is that fast) - or this is a fraud (like most letters posted on LDSFF lately...).

Al mission calls are by email right now. So, it could be true.

Also, we can all see her name through the marker. Not much of a stretch that someone could find Sister J. Woolley and ask her.

Oh, that's right - calls come in the form of emails now. No more anticipating finding the big white envelope in the mailbox.

Yeah, I noticed her name was clearly visible. Hope it's okay with her that her private info is online for all the world to see and discuss.

tdj wrote: ↑March 30th, 2019, 12:30 pm I never understood why they didn't make the age and time out to mission equal for both men and women. Every time it just seems like the women are the ones getting ripped off. In some form or fashion.

I never felt that.

I think the men of the church have tried valiantly for over a century to respect the different purposes of men and women, including that men are to protect and provide for women. As women continue to scorn that concern and offering, they continue to allow us to expose ourselves more directly to Satan and the dangers associated with that exposure.

Here is an analogy:

Imagine a group of women and men in a house. There are dangerous people outside trying to get in and hurt them. It used to be that the men would stand at the door with guns and windows to protect the women and children inside. At the insistence of the women and children, the men have handed out the guns to everyone and are leaving to fight somewhere else.

Sure the ladies now get to hold the gun to defend themselves, but they did so at the expense of having an extra layer of protection from the evil that wants to destroy them.

We could talk about the vulnerabilities that women have by virtue of being women that men are less prone to: rape, physical strength, physical vulnerabilities: like periods, pregnancy and illness that only happen to women or are more likely to happen to women. I know it isn't PC, but men and women are different. Women were created to give life, not take it. Men were created to provide for and defend life.

When will women realize they have traded their birthright for a mess of pottage? At this rate, not until the words of Isaiah are fulfilled and it is women who ask men for polygamy "to take away [their] reproach."

Isaiah 4:1 And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.

Michelle wrote: ↑March 30th, 2019, 12:51 pm

tdj wrote: ↑March 30th, 2019, 12:30 pm I never understood why they didn't make the age and time out to mission equal for both men and women. Every time it just seems like the women are the ones getting ripped off. In some form or fashion.

I never felt that.

I think the men of the church have tried valiantly for over a century to respect the different purposes of men and women, including that men are to protect and provide for women. As women continue to scorn that concern and offering, they continue to allow us to expose ourselves more directly to Satan and the dangers associated with that exposure.

Here is an analogy:

Imagine a group of women and men in a house. There are dangerous people outside trying to get in and hurt them. It used to be that the men would stand at the door with guns and windows to protect the women and children inside. At the insistence of the women and children, the men have handed out the guns to everyone and are leaving to fight somewhere else.

Sure the ladies now get to hold the gun to defend themselves, but they did so at the expense of having an extra layer of protection from the evil that wants to destroy them.

We could talk about the vulnerabilities that women have by virtue of being women that men are less prone to: rape, physical strength, physical vulnerabilities: like periods, pregnancy and illness that only happen to women or are more likely to happen to women. I know it isn't PC, but men and women are different. Women were created to give life, not take it. Men were created to provide for and defend life.

When will women realize they have traded their birthright for a mess of pottage? At this rate, not until the words of Isaiah are fulfilled and it is women who ask men for polygamy "to take away [their] reproach."

Isaiah 4:1 And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.

With the issue of going on a mission, I think the women ARE getting the shorter end of the stick. We hear constantly about what a blessing going on a mission is. I joined the church too late in life for a mission, so I'll never know the blessings it brings. If it's such a blessing, why cut off someone's experience by six months? On top of that, they have to wait until 19. If there's a valid reason for this, I think the members have a right to know why.

tdj wrote: ↑March 30th, 2019, 1:27 pm

Michelle wrote: ↑March 30th, 2019, 12:51 pm

tdj wrote: ↑March 30th, 2019, 12:30 pm I never understood why they didn't make the age and time out to mission equal for both men and women. Every time it just seems like the women are the ones getting ripped off. In some form or fashion.

I never felt that.

I think the men of the church have tried valiantly for over a century to respect the different purposes of men and women, including that men are to protect and provide for women. As women continue to scorn that concern and offering, they continue to allow us to expose ourselves more directly to Satan and the dangers associated with that exposure.

Here is an analogy:

Imagine a group of women and men in a house. There are dangerous people outside trying to get in and hurt them. It used to be that the men would stand at the door with guns and windows to protect the women and children inside. At the insistence of the women and children, the men have handed out the guns to everyone and are leaving to fight somewhere else.

Sure the ladies now get to hold the gun to defend themselves, but they did so at the expense of having an extra layer of protection from the evil that wants to destroy them.

We could talk about the vulnerabilities that women have by virtue of being women that men are less prone to: rape, physical strength, physical vulnerabilities: like periods, pregnancy and illness that only happen to women or are more likely to happen to women. I know it isn't PC, but men and women are different. Women were created to give life, not take it. Men were created to provide for and defend life.

When will women realize they have traded their birthright for a mess of pottage? At this rate, not until the words of Isaiah are fulfilled and it is women who ask men for polygamy "to take away [their] reproach."

Isaiah 4:1 And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.

With the issue of going on a mission, I think the women ARE getting the shorter end of the stick. We hear constantly about what a blessing going on a mission is. I joined the church too late in life for a mission, so I'll never know the blessings it brings. If it's such a blessing, why cut off someone's experience by six months? On top of that, they have to wait until 19. If there's a valid reason for this, I think the members have a right to know why.

You do realize that women can serve multiple missions AND there is no age restriction (or if there is, it's MUCH higher than 26 for young men?), or did you just conveniently forget that in your crusade to ensure "equality"?

You know it's quite ironic; men don't #@#$ and moan about not being able to wear colored shirts (like Sisters who have NO uniform), men don't @#$$ and moan about not being able to serve multiple mission, they don't @#$# and moan about having an age restriction.

If women want to be treated like men, they should learn to do what men do-suck it up and shut up.

I served a mission in Argentina in the early ‘80’s.

I came home a couple months before the Faulkland Island war. A bunch of my buddies were still serving when Argentina went to war against Great Britain.

The street level Argentines thought the Elders were CIA agents because of their white shirts and ties.... anyway... things got tense and the US missionaries were required to stay inside their apartments 24/7, only being allowed out for an hour a week to buy groceries.

By April Conference, they had been cooped up so long, that when Pres. Kimball announced 18 month missions (because of the high level of inflation in 1982) all of my buddies came home early, still completing their missions honorably.

The 18 month missions lasted... what..?? a couple of years..? Then it went back to 24 months for the boys. (Mostly because the last six months of a two year mission is when the language and experience skills are at the peak).

Anyway, I’d be surprised if they reduce the full time missionto 18 months in the upcoming April conference.

Nevertheless, Church HQ has to something big and bold to fix the stigma of early returning missionaries.

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 30th, 2019, 1:31 pm

tdj wrote: ↑March 30th, 2019, 1:27 pm

Michelle wrote: ↑March 30th, 2019, 12:51 pm

tdj wrote: ↑March 30th, 2019, 12:30 pm I never understood why they didn't make the age and time out to mission equal for both men and women. Every time it just seems like the women are the ones getting ripped off. In some form or fashion.

I never felt that.

I think the men of the church have tried valiantly for over a century to respect the different purposes of men and women, including that men are to protect and provide for women. As women continue to scorn that concern and offering, they continue to allow us to expose ourselves more directly to Satan and the dangers associated with that exposure.

Here is an analogy:

Imagine a group of women and men in a house. There are dangerous people outside trying to get in and hurt them. It used to be that the men would stand at the door with guns and windows to protect the women and children inside. At the insistence of the women and children, the men have handed out the guns to everyone and are leaving to fight somewhere else.

Sure the ladies now get to hold the gun to defend themselves, but they did so at the expense of having an extra layer of protection from the evil that wants to destroy them.

We could talk about the vulnerabilities that women have by virtue of being women that men are less prone to: rape, physical strength, physical vulnerabilities: like periods, pregnancy and illness that only happen to women or are more likely to happen to women. I know it isn't PC, but men and women are different. Women were created to give life, not take it. Men were created to provide for and defend life.

When will women realize they have traded their birthright for a mess of pottage? At this rate, not until the words of Isaiah are fulfilled and it is women who ask men for polygamy "to take away [their] reproach."

Isaiah 4:1 And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.

With the issue of going on a mission, I think the women ARE getting the shorter end of the stick. We hear constantly about what a blessing going on a mission is. I joined the church too late in life for a mission, so I'll never know the blessings it brings. If it's such a blessing, why cut off someone's experience by six months? On top of that, they have to wait until 19. If there's a valid reason for this, I think the members have a right to know why.

You do realize that women can serve multiple missions AND there is no age restriction (or if there is, it's MUCH higher than 26 for young men?), or did you just conveniently forget that in your crusade to ensure "equality"?

You know it's quite ironic; men don't #@#$ and moan about not being able to wear colored shirts (like Sisters who have NO uniform), men don't @#$$ and moan about not being able to serve multiple mission, they don't @#$# and moan about having an age restriction.

If women want to be treated like men, they should learn to do what men do-suck it up and shut up.

Listen sweetie, don't get all bent out of shape with me for stating the obvious. I'm a woman and I'll b!#2ch, piss and moan all the heck I want. And I'm telling you now that it is unfair to not allow the sisters to stay the full 2 yrs and experience the same length of the mission as the young men. Now if you can give me a sound, and reasonable explanation for that then that's one thing, but you keep going off on some ridiculous tangent that concerns something I'm not even talking about.

tdj wrote: ↑March 30th, 2019, 3:22 pm

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 30th, 2019, 1:31 pm

tdj wrote: ↑March 30th, 2019, 1:27 pm

Michelle wrote: ↑March 30th, 2019, 12:51 pm

I never felt that.

I think the men of the church have tried valiantly for over a century to respect the different purposes of men and women, including that men are to protect and provide for women. As women continue to scorn that concern and offering, they continue to allow us to expose ourselves more directly to Satan and the dangers associated with that exposure.

Here is an analogy:

Imagine a group of women and men in a house. There are dangerous people outside trying to get in and hurt them. It used to be that the men would stand at the door with guns and windows to protect the women and children inside. At the insistence of the women and children, the men have handed out the guns to everyone and are leaving to fight somewhere else.

Sure the ladies now get to hold the gun to defend themselves, but they did so at the expense of having an extra layer of protection from the evil that wants to destroy them.

We could talk about the vulnerabilities that women have by virtue of being women that men are less prone to: rape, physical strength, physical vulnerabilities: like periods, pregnancy and illness that only happen to women or are more likely to happen to women. I know it isn't PC, but men and women are different. Women were created to give life, not take it. Men were created to provide for and defend life.

When will women realize they have traded their birthright for a mess of pottage? At this rate, not until the words of Isaiah are fulfilled and it is women who ask men for polygamy "to take away [their] reproach."

With the issue of going on a mission, I think the women ARE getting the shorter end of the stick. We hear constantly about what a blessing going on a mission is. I joined the church too late in life for a mission, so I'll never know the blessings it brings. If it's such a blessing, why cut off someone's experience by six months? On top of that, they have to wait until 19. If there's a valid reason for this, I think the members have a right to know why.

You do realize that women can serve multiple missions AND there is no age restriction (or if there is, it's MUCH higher than 26 for young men?), or did you just conveniently forget that in your crusade to ensure "equality"?

You know it's quite ironic; men don't #@#$ and moan about not being able to wear colored shirts (like Sisters who have NO uniform), men don't @#$$ and moan about not being able to serve multiple mission, they don't @#$# and moan about having an age restriction.

If women want to be treated like men, they should learn to do what men do-suck it up and shut up.

Listen sweetie, don't get all bent out of shape with me for stating the obvious. I'm a woman and I'll b!#2ch, piss and moan all the heck I want. And I'm telling you now that it is unfair to not allow the sisters to stay the full 2 yrs and experience the same length of the mission as the young men. Now if you can give me a sound, and reasonable explanation for that then that's one thing, but you keep going off on some ridiculous tangent that concerns something I'm not even talking about.

Listen honey, don't get all bent out of shape for me stating the obvious.

Sister can serve multiple missions, they can serve when they are single and older. Men can't do that. But facts don't matter . .only feelings.

Just like torch, you are solidifying opinions. (and I'm not "bent out of shape"), I'm extremely un-emotional as I have typed these responses.

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 30th, 2019, 3:27 pm

tdj wrote: ↑March 30th, 2019, 3:22 pm

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 30th, 2019, 1:31 pm

tdj wrote: ↑March 30th, 2019, 1:27 pm

With the issue of going on a mission, I think the women ARE getting the shorter end of the stick. We hear constantly about what a blessing going on a mission is. I joined the church too late in life for a mission, so I'll never know the blessings it brings. If it's such a blessing, why cut off someone's experience by six months? On top of that, they have to wait until 19. If there's a valid reason for this, I think the members have a right to know why.

You do realize that women can serve multiple missions AND there is no age restriction (or if there is, it's MUCH higher than 26 for young men?), or did you just conveniently forget that in your crusade to ensure "equality"?

You know it's quite ironic; men don't #@#$ and moan about not being able to wear colored shirts (like Sisters who have NO uniform), men don't @#$$ and moan about not being able to serve multiple mission, they don't @#$# and moan about having an age restriction.

If women want to be treated like men, they should learn to do what men do-suck it up and shut up.

Listen sweetie, don't get all bent out of shape with me for stating the obvious. I'm a woman and I'll b!#2ch, piss and moan all the heck I want. And I'm telling you now that it is unfair to not allow the sisters to stay the full 2 yrs and experience the same length of the mission as the young men. Now if you can give me a sound, and reasonable explanation for that then that's one thing, but you keep going off on some ridiculous tangent that concerns something I'm not even talking about.

Listen honey, don't get all bent out of shape for me stating the obvious.

Sister can serve multiple missions, they can serve when they are single and older. Men can't do that. But facts don't matter . .only feelings.

Just like torch, you are solidifying opinions. (and I'm not "bent out of shape"), I'm extremely un-emotional as I have typed these responses.

Whether your a man or woman, many don't have the option of serving on a mission when they are a bit older. They have children, spouses, aging parents, etc. and by that point the opportunity more then often has slipped them by. THEREFORE, let the young women stay the full 2yrs before they reach a point in life (like the men) where they have too many family obligations to where going on a mission just isn't doable anymore. Don't cut them short for no good reason.

Good God almight, this isn't rocket surgery

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 30th, 2019, 3:27 pm

tdj wrote: ↑March 30th, 2019, 3:22 pm

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 30th, 2019, 1:31 pm

tdj wrote: ↑March 30th, 2019, 1:27 pm

With the issue of going on a mission, I think the women ARE getting the shorter end of the stick. We hear constantly about what a blessing going on a mission is. I joined the church too late in life for a mission, so I'll never know the blessings it brings. If it's such a blessing, why cut off someone's experience by six months? On top of that, they have to wait until 19. If there's a valid reason for this, I think the members have a right to know why.

You do realize that women can serve multiple missions AND there is no age restriction (or if there is, it's MUCH higher than 26 for young men?), or did you just conveniently forget that in your crusade to ensure "equality"?

You know it's quite ironic; men don't #@#$ and moan about not being able to wear colored shirts (like Sisters who have NO uniform), men don't @#$$ and moan about not being able to serve multiple mission, they don't @#$# and moan about having an age restriction.

If women want to be treated like men, they should learn to do what men do-suck it up and shut up.

Listen sweetie, don't get all bent out of shape with me for stating the obvious. I'm a woman and I'll b!#2ch, piss and moan all the heck I want. And I'm telling you now that it is unfair to not allow the sisters to stay the full 2 yrs and experience the same length of the mission as the young men. Now if you can give me a sound, and reasonable explanation for that then that's one thing, but you keep going off on some ridiculous tangent that concerns something I'm not even talking about.

Listen honey, don't get all bent out of shape for me stating the obvious.

Sister can serve multiple missions, they can serve when they are single and older. Men can't do that. But facts don't matter . .only feelings.

Just like torch, you are solidifying opinions. (and I'm not "bent out of shape"), I'm extremely un-emotional as I have typed these responses.

Whether your a man or woman, many don't have the option of serving on a mission when they are a bit older. They have children, spouses, aging parents, etc. and by that point the opportunity more then often has slipped them by. THEREFORE, let the young women stay the full 2yrs before they reach a point in life (like the men) where they have too many family obligations to where going on a mission just isn't doable anymore. Don't cut them short for no good reason.

Good God almighty, this isn't rocket surgery!!

That and the mentality is different when you're young. When you are older, often the blessings are a bit muted because you have years of baggage. Also, the family often weighs on the minds of the older people. Young folks just have a different mindset that is more open to blessings from a mission. Let them go the full two years.

tdj wrote: ↑March 30th, 2019, 3:32 pm

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 30th, 2019, 3:27 pm

tdj wrote: ↑March 30th, 2019, 3:22 pm

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 30th, 2019, 1:31 pm
You do realize that women can serve multiple missions AND there is no age restriction (or if there is, it's MUCH higher than 26 for young men?), or did you just conveniently forget that in your crusade to ensure "equality"?

You know it's quite ironic; men don't #@#$ and moan about not being able to wear colored shirts (like Sisters who have NO uniform), men don't @#$$ and moan about not being able to serve multiple mission, they don't @#$# and moan about having an age restriction.

If women want to be treated like men, they should learn to do what men do-suck it up and shut up.

Listen sweetie, don't get all bent out of shape with me for stating the obvious. I'm a woman and I'll b!#2ch, piss and moan all the heck I want. And I'm telling you now that it is unfair to not allow the sisters to stay the full 2 yrs and experience the same length of the mission as the young men. Now if you can give me a sound, and reasonable explanation for that then that's one thing, but you keep going off on some ridiculous tangent that concerns something I'm not even talking about.

Listen honey, don't get all bent out of shape for me stating the obvious.

Sister can serve multiple missions, they can serve when they are single and older. Men can't do that. But facts don't matter . .only feelings.

Just like torch, you are solidifying opinions. (and I'm not "bent out of shape"), I'm extremely un-emotional as I have typed these responses.

Whether your a man or woman, many don't have the option of serving on a mission when they are a bit older. They have children, spouses, aging parents, etc. and by that point the opportunity more then often has slipped them by. THEREFORE, let the young women stay the full 2yrs before they reach a point in life (like the men) where they have too many family obligations to where going on a mission just isn't doable anymore. Don't cut them short for no good reason.

Good God almight, this isn't rocket surgery

Women can serve multiple times (they have a six month delay-I think); men cannot. They can easily serve for 3 years if they desire.

I didn't know I was on the "let's take the name of God in vain" freedom forum.

Keep riding that hobby horse of feminisim-it won't get you anywhere.

tdj wrote: ↑March 30th, 2019, 12:30 pm I never understood why they didn't make the age and time out to mission equal for both men and women. Every time it just seems like the women are the ones getting ripped off. In some form or fashion.

I always figured that women went later and served less time to discourage them from going or to limit the amount of time and focus for them to serve missions. The church values the contribution of women in the mission field but im pretty sure the church would love for more young men to go and for the women to stay home and prepare themselves for being mothers.

There has been an increasing need for women in the church and I anticipate as the young men delay marriage more and more or completely forgo it all together that women will be given more opportunities to participate in things that help them stay on the path of the gospel. Marriage was viewed as a wonderful way and means to join two young people, the man recently returned from a mission and the woman preparing herself for her endowment, to help them stay on the gospel path with the man leading his wife in the gospel with the lessons and service and humility he aquired during his mission.
A man serving an honorable mission is a safe guard for his wife and family as he trains himself to be a righteous priesthood leader and brings that mindset to and offers that in his marriage. The man was always meant to more than just a provider of a home and food, but the provider of the gospel and strength and testimony to follow it as a leader and example to his wife and especially his children. Hes the head of the home afterall.

Somewhere along the road, the basics have been washed away and the truth distorted. Its really not about men vs women or women vs men or one taking away the duties from the other or one getting the short end of the stick. Its based soley on the fact that people have no real clue how to do things or how they should work overall so the focus is put into other thungs that distract. Its when one is not respected for their role (usually because the one disrespectIng has no clue what their role is) that the negative emotions come into play and the battles begin.

Without following things as they ought to be done, how do we even say we are doing anything all that “right”

And your statement about how women seem to be ripped off in some sort or fashion is a very real observation and is shared by many. Its likely because “woman” has has a huge focus to destroy everything she is and is no longer respected in general. This is pretty obvious if you look at the world. Unfortunately, the value of women (and likely men as well) will not be restored until Christ comes again. Its a sad state the world is in and everyone is being ripped off, sadly the children are now the target.

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 30th, 2019, 3:37 pm

tdj wrote: ↑March 30th, 2019, 3:32 pm

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 30th, 2019, 3:27 pm

tdj wrote: ↑March 30th, 2019, 3:22 pm

Listen sweetie, don't get all bent out of shape with me for stating the obvious. I'm a woman and I'll b!#2ch, piss and moan all the heck I want. And I'm telling you now that it is unfair to not allow the sisters to stay the full 2 yrs and experience the same length of the mission as the young men. Now if you can give me a sound, and reasonable explanation for that then that's one thing, but you keep going off on some ridiculous tangent that concerns something I'm not even talking about.

Listen honey, don't get all bent out of shape for me stating the obvious.

Sister can serve multiple missions, they can serve when they are single and older. Men can't do that. But facts don't matter . .only feelings.

Just like torch, you are solidifying opinions. (and I'm not "bent out of shape"), I'm extremely un-emotional as I have typed these responses.

Whether your a man or woman, many don't have the option of serving on a mission when they are a bit older. They have children, spouses, aging parents, etc. and by that point the opportunity more then often has slipped them by. THEREFORE, let the young women stay the full 2yrs before they reach a point in life (like the men) where they have too many family obligations to where going on a mission just isn't doable anymore. Don't cut them short for no good reason.

Good God almight, this isn't rocket surgery

Women can serve multiple times (they have a six month delay-I think); men cannot. They can easily serve for 3 years if they desire.

I didn't know I was on the "let's take the name of God in vain" freedom forum.

Keep riding that hobby horse of feminisim-it won't get you anywhere.

Again, the window of opportunity for people often limited to when they are young. Between the ages of 18 and 21. After that, youth are under a particular amount of pressure to get married and start families, which most do. When that window passes, then it passes. A number of folks are fortunate enough to get older and still be able to go on a mission, but not all.

There is no reason they shouldn't stay the full two years.

BTW taking Gods name in vain would have to involve his actual name and not merely his title. It also is talking about claiming the name and not living it.

Also, my argument about young women serving the full two years has NOTHING to do with feminism. The presidency making changes to the temple ordinances where women don't have to covenant to obey their husbands reeks more of feminism then what I posted does.

MMbelieve wrote: ↑March 30th, 2019, 3:51 pm

tdj wrote: ↑March 30th, 2019, 12:30 pm I never understood why they didn't make the age and time out to mission equal for both men and women. Every time it just seems like the women are the ones getting ripped off. In some form or fashion.

I always figured that women went later and served less time to discourage them from going or to limit the amount of time and focus for them to serve missions. The church values the contribution of women in the mission field but im pretty sure the church would love for more young men to go and for the women to stay home and prepare themselves for being mothers.

There has been an increasing need for women in the church and I anticipate as the young men delay marriage more and more or completely forgo it all together that women will be given more opportunities to participate in things that help them stay on the path of the gospel. Marriage was viewed as a wonderful way and means to join two young people, the man recently returned from a mission and the woman preparing herself for her endowment, to help them stay on the gospel path with the man leading his wife in the gospel with the lessons and service and humility he aquired during his mission.
A man serving an honorable mission is a safe guard for his wife and family as he trains himself to be a righteous priesthood leader and brings that mindset to and offers that in his marriage. The man was always meant to more than just a provider of a home and food, but the provider of the gospel and strength and testimony to follow it as a leader and example to his wife and especially his children. Hes the head of the home afterall.

Somewhere along the road, the basics have been washed away and the truth distorted. Its really not about men vs women or women vs men or one taking away the duties from the other or one getting the short end of the stick. Its based soley on the fact that people have no real clue how to do things or how they should work overall so the focus is put into other thungs that distract. Its when one is not respected for their role (usually because the one disrespectIng has no clue what their role is) that the negative emotions come into play and the battles begin.

Without following things as they ought to be done, how do we even say we are doing anything all that “right”

And your statement about how women seem to be ripped off in some sort or fashion is a very real observation and is shared by many. Its likely because “woman” has has a huge focus to destroy everything she is and is no longer respected in general. This is pretty obvious if you look at the world. Unfortunately, the value of women (and likely men as well) will not be restored until Christ comes again. Its a sad state the world is in and everyone is being ripped off, sadly the children are now the target.

Thank you for your response. It's refreshing to engage in conversation on this topic with someone who is rational for a change.

I don't know why the church would feel the need to discourage missions for women so they can get married and have kids. Allowing them the extra 6 mos would have no effect on that. And they go at 18 instead of 19, then that's an extra year for them to go. They can come back at 20, which still leaves plenty of time.
I've heard of how much of a blessing going on a mission is, and even though it brings blessing to a home for a man and his family, it also benefits the young woman as well. Children benefit the most when BOTH parents have been blessed in this fashion. I'm just saying the restriction is SO unnecessary and might even stunt some of the blessings involved for the young woman. No good reason at all to do this.
It's my hope that this will be recognized and corrected next week at GC since other corrections have already been made.

tdj wrote: ↑March 30th, 2019, 4:03 pm

MMbelieve wrote: ↑March 30th, 2019, 3:51 pm

tdj wrote: ↑March 30th, 2019, 12:30 pm I never understood why they didn't make the age and time out to mission equal for both men and women. Every time it just seems like the women are the ones getting ripped off. In some form or fashion.

I always figured that women went later and served less time to discourage them from going or to limit the amount of time and focus for them to serve missions. The church values the contribution of women in the mission field but im pretty sure the church would love for more young men to go and for the women to stay home and prepare themselves for being mothers.

There has been an increasing need for women in the church and I anticipate as the young men delay marriage more and more or completely forgo it all together that women will be given more opportunities to participate in things that help them stay on the path of the gospel. Marriage was viewed as a wonderful way and means to join two young people, the man recently returned from a mission and the woman preparing herself for her endowment, to help them stay on the gospel path with the man leading his wife in the gospel with the lessons and service and humility he aquired during his mission.
A man serving an honorable mission is a safe guard for his wife and family as he trains himself to be a righteous priesthood leader and brings that mindset to and offers that in his marriage. The man was always meant to more than just a provider of a home and food, but the provider of the gospel and strength and testimony to follow it as a leader and example to his wife and especially his children. Hes the head of the home afterall.

Somewhere along the road, the basics have been washed away and the truth distorted. Its really not about men vs women or women vs men or one taking away the duties from the other or one getting the short end of the stick. Its based soley on the fact that people have no real clue how to do things or how they should work overall so the focus is put into other thungs that distract. Its when one is not respected for their role (usually because the one disrespectIng has no clue what their role is) that the negative emotions come into play and the battles begin.

Without following things as they ought to be done, how do we even say we are doing anything all that “right”

And your statement about how women seem to be ripped off in some sort or fashion is a very real observation and is shared by many. Its likely because “woman” has has a huge focus to destroy everything she is and is no longer respected in general. This is pretty obvious if you look at the world. Unfortunately, the value of women (and likely men as well) will not be restored until Christ comes again. Its a sad state the world is in and everyone is being ripped off, sadly the children are now the target.

It's my hope that this will be recognized and corrected next week at GC since other corrections have already been made.

I hope you will advocate just as much for men to be able to serve multiple missions, have no age restriction and be able to wear colored shirts. If you will not advocate as much for this . . .then you are being a hypocrite.

tdj wrote: ↑March 30th, 2019, 4:03 pm

MMbelieve wrote: ↑March 30th, 2019, 3:51 pm

tdj wrote: ↑March 30th, 2019, 12:30 pm I never understood why they didn't make the age and time out to mission equal for both men and women. Every time it just seems like the women are the ones getting ripped off. In some form or fashion.

I always figured that women went later and served less time to discourage them from going or to limit the amount of time and focus for them to serve missions. The church values the contribution of women in the mission field but im pretty sure the church would love for more young men to go and for the women to stay home and prepare themselves for being mothers.

There has been an increasing need for women in the church and I anticipate as the young men delay marriage more and more or completely forgo it all together that women will be given more opportunities to participate in things that help them stay on the path of the gospel. Marriage was viewed as a wonderful way and means to join two young people, the man recently returned from a mission and the woman preparing herself for her endowment, to help them stay on the gospel path with the man leading his wife in the gospel with the lessons and service and humility he aquired during his mission.
A man serving an honorable mission is a safe guard for his wife and family as he trains himself to be a righteous priesthood leader and brings that mindset to and offers that in his marriage. The man was always meant to more than just a provider of a home and food, but the provider of the gospel and strength and testimony to follow it as a leader and example to his wife and especially his children. Hes the head of the home afterall.

Somewhere along the road, the basics have been washed away and the truth distorted. Its really not about men vs women or women vs men or one taking away the duties from the other or one getting the short end of the stick. Its based soley on the fact that people have no real clue how to do things or how they should work overall so the focus is put into other thungs that distract. Its when one is not respected for their role (usually because the one disrespectIng has no clue what their role is) that the negative emotions come into play and the battles begin.

Without following things as they ought to be done, how do we even say we are doing anything all that “right”

And your statement about how women seem to be ripped off in some sort or fashion is a very real observation and is shared by many. Its likely because “woman” has has a huge focus to destroy everything she is and is no longer respected in general. This is pretty obvious if you look at the world. Unfortunately, the value of women (and likely men as well) will not be restored until Christ comes again. Its a sad state the world is in and everyone is being ripped off, sadly the children are now the target.

Thank you for your response. It's refreshing to engage in conversation on this topic with someone who is rational for a change.

I don't know why the church would feel the need to discourage missions for women so they can get married and have kids. Allowing them the extra 6 mos would have no effect on that. And they go at 18 instead of 19, then that's an extra year for them to go. They can come back at 20, which still leaves plenty of time.
I've heard of how much of a blessing going on a mission is, and even though it brings blessing to a home for a man and his family, it also benefits the young woman as well. Children benefit the most when BOTH parents have been blessed in this fashion. I'm just saying the restriction is SO unnecessary and might even stunt some of the blessings involved for the young woman. No good reason at all to do this.
It's my hope that this will be recognized and corrected next week at GC since other corrections have already been made.

Maybe its something to do with the belief that women are weaker by nature (though debatable anymore these days) so not expecting 2 full years, or maybe to not hold women to the same requirement the men have? Women are not required as the men are and still allowing the women who want to go a chance to is actually quite compassionate on their part (the ones who set the whole thing up). The one and only thing I do not understand in light of the conversation is that IF the last 6 months is when a missionary is most effective and when the language is most understood then women on a foreign language mission have a greater responsibility to not only be as effective in shorter time but also to learn the language much faster. Thats alot of pressure im sure.

I didnt go on a mision so I couldnt give you first hand experience but I can tell you that I didnt need a mission to be strong in my testimony or to have good experiences or to be able to be a light to my kids. A mission is to spread the gospel and there are more reasons than not that men need to and women dont need to. The great experiences missionaries have can also be just as obtainable in our everyday life, especually for women as being the more outgoing and social type. But I can understand when the men have experiences that sound great and rewarding that women would want to experience that as well. Its too bad that men cant see the example they show (kinda like a leader??) actually draws women into that and causes them to desire to serve and help and bless and follow that example instead of just being derogatory (labeling them femanist) and thinking women are trying to take it away from them. In this area men have alot of maturing to do.

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 30th, 2019, 4:12 pm

tdj wrote: ↑March 30th, 2019, 4:03 pm

MMbelieve wrote: ↑March 30th, 2019, 3:51 pm

tdj wrote: ↑March 30th, 2019, 12:30 pm I never understood why they didn't make the age and time out to mission equal for both men and women. Every time it just seems like the women are the ones getting ripped off. In some form or fashion.

I always figured that women went later and served less time to discourage them from going or to limit the amount of time and focus for them to serve missions. The church values the contribution of women in the mission field but im pretty sure the church would love for more young men to go and for the women to stay home and prepare themselves for being mothers.

There has been an increasing need for women in the church and I anticipate as the young men delay marriage more and more or completely forgo it all together that women will be given more opportunities to participate in things that help them stay on the path of the gospel. Marriage was viewed as a wonderful way and means to join two young people, the man recently returned from a mission and the woman preparing herself for her endowment, to help them stay on the gospel path with the man leading his wife in the gospel with the lessons and service and humility he aquired during his mission.
A man serving an honorable mission is a safe guard for his wife and family as he trains himself to be a righteous priesthood leader and brings that mindset to and offers that in his marriage. The man was always meant to more than just a provider of a home and food, but the provider of the gospel and strength and testimony to follow it as a leader and example to his wife and especially his children. Hes the head of the home afterall.

Somewhere along the road, the basics have been washed away and the truth distorted. Its really not about men vs women or women vs men or one taking away the duties from the other or one getting the short end of the stick. Its based soley on the fact that people have no real clue how to do things or how they should work overall so the focus is put into other thungs that distract. Its when one is not respected for their role (usually because the one disrespectIng has no clue what their role is) that the negative emotions come into play and the battles begin.

Without following things as they ought to be done, how do we even say we are doing anything all that “right”

And your statement about how women seem to be ripped off in some sort or fashion is a very real observation and is shared by many. Its likely because “woman” has has a huge focus to destroy everything she is and is no longer respected in general. This is pretty obvious if you look at the world. Unfortunately, the value of women (and likely men as well) will not be restored until Christ comes again. Its a sad state the world is in and everyone is being ripped off, sadly the children are now the target.

It's my hope that this will be recognized and corrected next week at GC since other corrections have already been made.

I hope you will advocate just as much for men to be able to serve multiple missions, have no age restriction and be able to wear colored shirts. If you will not advocate as much for this . . .then you are being a hypocrite.

Stop babbling b.s at me. Please

Some time back when I when I was doing some work for a European news agency in the mountain west I got a request from my editors to do a nice quick little story on the number of sister missionaries, were there more now than in the past and so on. This simple story turned out to be a nightmare as the Church would not give out even the percentages for some reason known only to them. I eventually got the numbers by sweet talking them out of the secretary to the president of the MTC in Provo.

What they showed was a steady increase in the number up until about the mid 1980's then there started to be a more rapid rise. A graph would have shown what is commonly called a hockey stick line. This got me curious as to the possible reasons for this. Here is what I found.

The old ages for missionaries 19 for young men and 21 for young women were set in the early 1950's. The ages seemed to be selected for a very deliberate reason. In 1950 the median age of first marriage in the U.S. for men was 22.8 and for women it was 20.3. So the ages were set so that a young man would be able to go for the full two years and still be home before the average age of marriage. For young women however the age was set higher than the average age of marriage meaning that demographically most of the young women would be marriage before ever reaching the mission age of 21.

Now lets look at what has happened to the average age of first marriage in 1956 the average reached it lowest age 22.5 for men 20.1 for women. It then begins a steady rise, By 1973 young women are now at mission age 21.0 year and so the pool of young women who now could possibly serve missions starts to rise. By 1984 the age has risen to 23.0 year which means that we have now reached the point where not only has the pool become larger but they can now all serve and still be home before that age. In addition the median age for young men has also been climbing in these years as well.

By 1998 the ages are 26.8 for men and 25.0 for women, notice that the age spread b between the two is starting to narrow. At this point most young women of mission age are not married and the pool of young women eligible for mission service has grown exponentially larger.

In 2018 the ages are now 29.8 for men and 27.8 for women. Added to this the age drop for both genders has created a situation where almost no young women of 19 have any realistic prospects for marriage and the pool of perspective missionaries is roughly the same for both genders.

Now these ages are the national average and the ages for Utah with it's younger population are a bit lower but we are not immune from the demographic forces at play here. So at one time the ages were set by accident or design to limit the number of young women serving missions. However the demographic trend in marriage age caught up with and over took those ages.

Then the Church lowered the ages which only grew to already large pool of potential sister missionaries even larger. Also remember that the number of young men in the potential missionary pool is really rather fixed. There is no room to lower the age anymore 18 is the minimum and young men have several other issues that they face, They die at a rate greater than do young women, many young men around the world have military or extended family obligations which preclude them from mission service. The end result is that we have grown the available numbers of young women while the number of young men has remained relatively flat.

Demographics is a harsh task master and it care little for how we feel about its figures.

tdj wrote: ↑March 30th, 2019, 6:04 pm

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 30th, 2019, 4:12 pm

tdj wrote: ↑March 30th, 2019, 4:03 pm

MMbelieve wrote: ↑March 30th, 2019, 3:51 pm

I always figured that women went later and served less time to discourage them from going or to limit the amount of time and focus for them to serve missions. The church values the contribution of women in the mission field but im pretty sure the church would love for more young men to go and for the women to stay home and prepare themselves for being mothers.

There has been an increasing need for women in the church and I anticipate as the young men delay marriage more and more or completely forgo it all together that women will be given more opportunities to participate in things that help them stay on the path of the gospel. Marriage was viewed as a wonderful way and means to join two young people, the man recently returned from a mission and the woman preparing herself for her endowment, to help them stay on the gospel path with the man leading his wife in the gospel with the lessons and service and humility he aquired during his mission.
A man serving an honorable mission is a safe guard for his wife and family as he trains himself to be a righteous priesthood leader and brings that mindset to and offers that in his marriage. The man was always meant to more than just a provider of a home and food, but the provider of the gospel and strength and testimony to follow it as a leader and example to his wife and especially his children. Hes the head of the home afterall.

Somewhere along the road, the basics have been washed away and the truth distorted. Its really not about men vs women or women vs men or one taking away the duties from the other or one getting the short end of the stick. Its based soley on the fact that people have no real clue how to do things or how they should work overall so the focus is put into other thungs that distract. Its when one is not respected for their role (usually because the one disrespectIng has no clue what their role is) that the negative emotions come into play and the battles begin.

Without following things as they ought to be done, how do we even say we are doing anything all that “right”

And your statement about how women seem to be ripped off in some sort or fashion is a very real observation and is shared by many. Its likely because “woman” has has a huge focus to destroy everything she is and is no longer respected in general. This is pretty obvious if you look at the world. Unfortunately, the value of women (and likely men as well) will not be restored until Christ comes again. Its a sad state the world is in and everyone is being ripped off, sadly the children are now the target.

It's my hope that this will be recognized and corrected next week at GC since other corrections have already been made.

I hope you will advocate just as much for men to be able to serve multiple missions, have no age restriction and be able to wear colored shirts. If you will not advocate as much for this . . .then you are being a hypocrite.

Stop babbling b.s at me. Please

Very Christlike of you.