Your home for discussing politics, the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, and the principles of liberty.
https://ldsfreedomforum.com/
I think women shouldn't even go on missions. They have a greater mission to perform, ( or just as good as) and that is to be a co-creator with God, in the sacred home. And to teach/save the souls of their own offspring. And their reward will be just as good or great as the missionary that saves some souls in the field....tdj wrote: ↑March 30th, 2019, 1:27 pmWith 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.Michelle wrote: ↑March 30th, 2019, 12:51 pmI 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.
Just how many 19 year old young women have any prospects of marriage at that age? Wouldn't going on a mission be just as valuable in making them ready for marriage and motherhood than say the current singles scene?simpleton wrote: ↑March 31st, 2019, 9:05 amI think women shouldn't even go on missions. They have a greater mission to perform, ( or just as good as) and that is to be a co-creator with God, in the sacred home. And to teach/save the souls of their own offspring. And their reward will be just as good or great as the missionary that saves some souls in the field....
Oh, shoot, I forgot, that is not being politically correct...
I was terrified of going on a mission in the mid/late 80's. I was sure that if I wasn't married by the time I was 21 I was going to be called. (I had no interest) Thankfully I married at 19.gkearney wrote: ↑March 31st, 2019, 9:17 amJust how many 19 year old young women have any prospects of marriage at that age? Wouldn't going on a mission be just as valuable in making them ready for marriage and motherhood than say the current singles scene?simpleton wrote: ↑March 31st, 2019, 9:05 amI think women shouldn't even go on missions. They have a greater mission to perform, ( or just as good as) and that is to be a co-creator with God, in the sacred home. And to teach/save the souls of their own offspring. And their reward will be just as good or great as the missionary that saves some souls in the field....
Oh, shoot, I forgot, that is not being politically correct...
(My hubby is 4 years older)What a mission is designed to help a young man with should also be helpful to a young woman. Anything that engages young people in the gospel and service is far better than anything that focuses on self in this increasingly selfish world. I think its great that women can go on missions and Can only be helpful for those who do go. However, if a woman has a proposal to a man she wants to marry then she should do so and forgoe her mission unless she has been specifically called to do so.gkearney wrote: ↑March 31st, 2019, 9:17 amJust how many 19 year old young women have any prospects of marriage at that age? Wouldn't going on a mission be just as valuable in making them ready for marriage and motherhood than say the current singles scene?simpleton wrote: ↑March 31st, 2019, 9:05 amI think women shouldn't even go on missions. They have a greater mission to perform, ( or just as good as) and that is to be a co-creator with God, in the sacred home. And to teach/save the souls of their own offspring. And their reward will be just as good or great as the missionary that saves some souls in the field....
Oh, shoot, I forgot, that is not being politically correct...
I thought I wanted to go on a mission and it would have been 2003, I didnt feel pressure at all to go (i was only 19 when contemplating going 2001) and I knew that it was not required of women and it was solely my choice. I decided to skip it as I felt no pull to go as the time was closer.kittycat51 wrote: ↑March 31st, 2019, 10:33 amI was terrified of going on a mission in the mid/late 80's. I was sure that if I wasn't married by the time I was 21 I was going to be called. (I had no interest) Thankfully I married at 19.gkearney wrote: ↑March 31st, 2019, 9:17 amJust how many 19 year old young women have any prospects of marriage at that age? Wouldn't going on a mission be just as valuable in making them ready for marriage and motherhood than say the current singles scene?simpleton wrote: ↑March 31st, 2019, 9:05 amI think women shouldn't even go on missions. They have a greater mission to perform, ( or just as good as) and that is to be a co-creator with God, in the sacred home. And to teach/save the souls of their own offspring. And their reward will be just as good or great as the missionary that saves some souls in the field....
Oh, shoot, I forgot, that is not being politically correct...
Well every single 19 year old young woman should have a prospect of marriage ... or even 18 year old or even 17 or even ... well I'll stop as that would bring up some nasty controversy. Point is, if there is actually no prospects, something is wrong.gkearney wrote: ↑March 31st, 2019, 9:17 amJust how many 19 year old young women have any prospects of marriage at that age? Wouldn't going on a mission be just as valuable in making them ready for marriage and motherhood than say the current singles scene?simpleton wrote: ↑March 31st, 2019, 9:05 amI think women shouldn't even go on missions. They have a greater mission to perform, ( or just as good as) and that is to be a co-creator with God, in the sacred home. And to teach/save the souls of their own offspring. And their reward will be just as good or great as the missionary that saves some souls in the field....
Oh, shoot, I forgot, that is not being politically correct...
That says that it is from March 29, 2019, so I will be looking to see if a bug report shows up next week.
simpleton wrote: ↑March 31st, 2019, 1:22 pmWell every single 19 year old young woman should have a prospect of marriage ... or even 18 year old or even 17 or even ... well I'll stop as that would bring up some nasty controversy. Point is, if there is actually no prospects, something is wrong.gkearney wrote: ↑March 31st, 2019, 9:17 amJust how many 19 year old young women have any prospects of marriage at that age? Wouldn't going on a mission be just as valuable in making them ready for marriage and motherhood than say the current singles scene?simpleton wrote: ↑March 31st, 2019, 9:05 amI think women shouldn't even go on missions. They have a greater mission to perform, ( or just as good as) and that is to be a co-creator with God, in the sacred home. And to teach/save the souls of their own offspring. And their reward will be just as good or great as the missionary that saves some souls in the field....
Oh, shoot, I forgot, that is not being politically correct...
Fortunately, we quickly gave the Argies a good kicking.JK4Woods wrote: ↑March 30th, 2019, 2:15 pm 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.
Yes I know... I think the whole system needs to be changed, completely. I think sometime it will, drastically. But who knows when. But as it is now the existing system is no good at all. The evidence speaks for itself.gkearney wrote: ↑March 31st, 2019, 1:41 pmsimpleton wrote: ↑March 31st, 2019, 1:22 pmWell every single 19 year old young woman should have a prospect of marriage ... or even 18 year old or even 17 or even ... well I'll stop as that would bring up some nasty controversy. Point is, if there is actually no prospects, something is wrong.gkearney wrote: ↑March 31st, 2019, 9:17 amJust how many 19 year old young women have any prospects of marriage at that age? Wouldn't going on a mission be just as valuable in making them ready for marriage and motherhood than say the current singles scene?simpleton wrote: ↑March 31st, 2019, 9:05 amI think women shouldn't even go on missions. They have a greater mission to perform, ( or just as good as) and that is to be a co-creator with God, in the sacred home. And to teach/save the souls of their own offspring. And their reward will be just as good or great as the missionary that saves some souls in the field....
Oh, shoot, I forgot, that is not being politically correct...
You need to get out and talk to some of these young people. You would find it educational.
Possibly an error. Calls for sisters are still 18 months. Call letters are template-driven and the appropriate data is inserted into the template. This could be due to either a human error or software error. I will find out if there was a software error probably this upcoming week.
Call letters are all online now, except for special circumstances (e.g. lack of internet in applicant's country). The applicant will receive an email and text (if a phone # is provided), and they will view their calling online.EmmaLee wrote: ↑March 30th, 2019, 11:56 amThe 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...).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
simpleton wrote: ↑March 31st, 2019, 9:05 amI think women shouldn't even go on missions. They have a greater mission to perform, ( or just as good as) and that is to be a co-creator with God, in the sacred home. And to teach/save the souls of their own offspring. And their reward will be just as good or great as the missionary that saves some souls in the field....tdj wrote: ↑March 30th, 2019, 1:27 pmWith 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.Michelle wrote: ↑March 30th, 2019, 12:51 pmI 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.
Oh, shoot, I forgot, that is not being politically correct...
simpleton wrote: ↑March 31st, 2019, 9:05 amI think women shouldn't even go on missions. They have a greater mission to perform, ( or just as good as) and that is to be a co-creator with God, in the sacred home. And to teach/save the souls of their own offspring. And their reward will be just as good or great as the missionary that saves some souls in the field....tdj wrote: ↑March 30th, 2019, 1:27 pmWith 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.Michelle wrote: ↑March 30th, 2019, 12:51 pmI 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.
Oh, shoot, I forgot, that is not being politically correct...
Sounds like you are impressing your regrets upon your daughter. My mother got married when she was 18. 18 isn't young to get married if you raise them right.tdj wrote: ↑March 31st, 2019, 3:26 pmI dont think women going on missions would affect that though. 18 to 21 is a bit young (IMO) for a kid to be married anyway. I think both benefit from not just the blessings of a mission, but from the chance to grow up a bit in a relatively safe and watched over environment.simpleton wrote: ↑March 31st, 2019, 9:05 amI think women shouldn't even go on missions. They have a greater mission to perform, ( or just as good as) and that is to be a co-creator with God, in the sacred home. And to teach/save the souls of their own offspring. And their reward will be just as good or great as the missionary that saves some souls in the field....tdj wrote: ↑March 30th, 2019, 1:27 pmWith 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.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."
Oh, shoot, I forgot, that is not being politically correct...
I have a daughter who just recently turned 18. She's a fantastic kid with a bright future, and she wants to marry a righteous young man, and have about 8 kids. I think that's awesome but I've also told her to enjoy her youth and her freedom for awhile. Dont grow up any sooner then she has too. When those youthful, carefree days are gone, they are GONE.
You couldn't teach and train a child for 18 years to grow up and expect a mission to do it for them??tdj wrote: ↑March 31st, 2019, 3:27 pmI think both benefit from not just the blessings of a mission, but from the chance to grow up a bit in a relatively safe and watched over environment.simpleton wrote: ↑March 31st, 2019, 9:05 amI think women shouldn't even go on missions. They have a greater mission to perform, ( or just as good as) and that is to be a co-creator with God, in the sacred home. And to teach/save the souls of their own offspring. And their reward will be just as good or great as the missionary that saves some souls in the field....tdj wrote: ↑March 30th, 2019, 1:27 pmWith 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.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."
Oh, shoot, I forgot, that is not being politically correct...
Yes in today's average mindset 25 is even to young, but back in Joseph's day and in biblical times they were all for their children marrying young.... the Virgin Mary was just 14... God sure didn't consider that to young, during the Nauvoo period Joseph as Mayor signed a city ordinance allowing girls to get married at 14 and boys at 16 WITH PARENTAL CONSENT... the idea I suppose to keep them out of the trouble they get into today.... getting married should be something to look forward to, as part of progression, not something to put off as the dreadful day.tdj wrote: ↑March 31st, 2019, 3:27 pmsimpleton wrote: ↑March 31st, 2019, 9:05 amI think women shouldn't even go on missions. They have a greater mission to perform, ( or just as good as) and that is to be a co-creator with God, in the sacred home. And to teach/save the souls of their own offspring. And their reward will be just as good or great as the missionary that saves some souls in the field....tdj wrote: ↑March 30th, 2019, 1:27 pmWith 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.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."
Oh, shoot, I forgot, that is not being politically correct...
I dont think women going on missions would affect that though. 18 to 21 is a bit young (IMO) for a kid to be married anyway. I think both benefit from not just the blessings of a mission, but from the chance to grow up a bit in a relatively safe and watched over environment.
I have a daughter who just recently turned 18. She's a fantastic kid with a bright future, and she wants to marry a righteous young man, and have about 8 kids. I think that's awesome but I've also told her to enjoy her youth and her freedom for awhile. Dont grow up any sooner then she has too. When those youthful, carefree days are gone, they are GONE.
It's not a day to dread. Of course not, but many people look back on their young adulthood, before all the burdens and responsibilities placed on them, with kids, jobs car payments, pta meetings, dance, soccer, band, etc and mortgages, and they are a bit rueful, and think maybe they should have waited an extra year before moving out, or getting married or something similar. They may look back fondly on those memories and think maybe they jumped the gun a bit too soon.simpleton wrote: ↑March 31st, 2019, 4:38 pmYes in today's average mindset 25 is even to young, but back in Joseph's day and in biblical times they were all for their children marrying young.... the Virgin Mary was just 14... God sure didn't consider that to young, during the Nauvoo period Joseph as Mayor signed a city ordinance allowing girls to get married at 14 and boys at 16 WITH PARENTAL CONSENT... the idea I suppose to keep them out of the trouble they get into today.... getting married should be something to look forward to, as part of progression, not something to put off as the dreadful day.tdj wrote: ↑March 31st, 2019, 3:27 pmsimpleton wrote: ↑March 31st, 2019, 9:05 amI think women shouldn't even go on missions. They have a greater mission to perform, ( or just as good as) and that is to be a co-creator with God, in the sacred home. And to teach/save the souls of their own offspring. And their reward will be just as good or great as the missionary that saves some souls in the field....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.
Oh, shoot, I forgot, that is not being politically correct...
I dont think women going on missions would affect that though. 18 to 21 is a bit young (IMO) for a kid to be married anyway. I think both benefit from not just the blessings of a mission, but from the chance to grow up a bit in a relatively safe and watched over environment.
I have a daughter who just recently turned 18. She's a fantastic kid with a bright future, and she wants to marry a righteous young man, and have about 8 kids. I think that's awesome but I've also told her to enjoy her youth and her freedom for awhile. Dont grow up any sooner then she has too. When those youthful, carefree days are gone, they are GONE.
A mission DEFINITELY matures a kid. Yes, they grow up. What in the heck is wrong with raising a child and then sending them off on a mission knowing they will be enriched by the experience and mature even more? Their primary purpose is to spread the gospel, but continuing to mature in a safe environment away from home is a side effect that exists. Nothing at all wrong with a parent recognizing that truth and looking forward to the enrichment.dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 31st, 2019, 3:37 pmYou couldn't teach and train a child for 18 years to grow up and expect a mission to do it for them??tdj wrote: ↑March 31st, 2019, 3:27 pmI think both benefit from not just the blessings of a mission, but from the chance to grow up a bit in a relatively safe and watched over environment.simpleton wrote: ↑March 31st, 2019, 9:05 amI think women shouldn't even go on missions. They have a greater mission to perform, ( or just as good as) and that is to be a co-creator with God, in the sacred home. And to teach/save the souls of their own offspring. And their reward will be just as good or great as the missionary that saves some souls in the field....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.
Oh, shoot, I forgot, that is not being politically correct...
No wonder the missionaries (in general) suck today.
And so does getting married. In fact, getting married will mature a young adult much quicker and faster than going on a mission.tdj wrote: ↑March 31st, 2019, 5:21 pmA mission DEFINITELY matures a kid. Yes, they grow up. What in the heck is wrong with raising a child and then sending them off on a mission knowing they will be enriched by the experience and mature even more? Their primary purpose is to spread the gospel, but continuing to mature in a safe environment away from home is a side effect that exists. Nothing at all wrong with a parent recognizing that truth and looking forward to the enrichment.dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 31st, 2019, 3:37 pmYou couldn't teach and train a child for 18 years to grow up and expect a mission to do it for them??tdj wrote: ↑March 31st, 2019, 3:27 pmI think both benefit from not just the blessings of a mission, but from the chance to grow up a bit in a relatively safe and watched over environment.simpleton wrote: ↑March 31st, 2019, 9:05 am
I think women shouldn't even go on missions. They have a greater mission to perform, ( or just as good as) and that is to be a co-creator with God, in the sacred home. And to teach/save the souls of their own offspring. And their reward will be just as good or great as the missionary that saves some souls in the field....
Oh, shoot, I forgot, that is not being politically correct...
No wonder the missionaries (in general) suck today.
You're missing one other point that should make this fraud mind-numbingly obvious. In September 2018 the church announced that mission calls would be extended via email instead of snail mail. If this was an email that had been printed out then it wouldn't have creases as it had been in an envelope.EmmaLee wrote: ↑March 30th, 2019, 11:56 amThe 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...).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
I had you pegged exactly right. You are projecting upon your own daughter your own regrets instead of letting her be an adult and live her own life.tdj wrote: ↑March 31st, 2019, 5:15 pmIt's not a day to dread. Of course not, but many people look back on their young adulthood, before all the burdens and responsibilities placed on them, with kids, jobs car payments, pta meetings, dance, soccer, band, etc and mortgages, and they are a bit rueful, and think maybe they should have waited an extra year before moving out, or getting married or something similar. They may look back fondly on those memories and think maybe they jumped the gun a bit too soon.simpleton wrote: ↑March 31st, 2019, 4:38 pmYes in today's average mindset 25 is even to young, but back in Joseph's day and in biblical times they were all for their children marrying young.... the Virgin Mary was just 14... God sure didn't consider that to young, during the Nauvoo period Joseph as Mayor signed a city ordinance allowing girls to get married at 14 and boys at 16 WITH PARENTAL CONSENT... the idea I suppose to keep them out of the trouble they get into today.... getting married should be something to look forward to, as part of progression, not something to put off as the dreadful day.tdj wrote: ↑March 31st, 2019, 3:27 pmsimpleton wrote: ↑March 31st, 2019, 9:05 am
I think women shouldn't even go on missions. They have a greater mission to perform, ( or just as good as) and that is to be a co-creator with God, in the sacred home. And to teach/save the souls of their own offspring. And their reward will be just as good or great as the missionary that saves some souls in the field....
Oh, shoot, I forgot, that is not being politically correct...
I dont think women going on missions would affect that though. 18 to 21 is a bit young (IMO) for a kid to be married anyway. I think both benefit from not just the blessings of a mission, but from the chance to grow up a bit in a relatively safe and watched over environment.
I have a daughter who just recently turned 18. She's a fantastic kid with a bright future, and she wants to marry a righteous young man, and have about 8 kids. I think that's awesome but I've also told her to enjoy her youth and her freedom for awhile. Dont grow up any sooner then she has too. When those youthful, carefree days are gone, they are GONE.
I don't think 25 is too young. That's about the age when the brain truly gears into adulthood. In the old times it was typical for 14yr olds to marry because frankly, people didn't live as long. Women in particular, fared better in childbirth if they did it younger, vs when they were older. The maternal mortality rate was and is less for teenagers. Men didn't really have the same risks, so it was quite common for middle aged men to marry young maidens. But thanks to the longevity of humanity increasing, we have the luxury of extending childhood to 18, and youth to mid 20's. I'm just saying if I had it to do over again, I would have relished those years more and taken just a few years longer. I think I and my children would have done better if I had my first at around 25, and second at 30, instead of 21, and 25. But we don't know what we know, do we? Maybe it's not for everyone, but it's worth considering.
tdj wrote: ↑March 31st, 2019, 5:15 pmIt's not a day to dread. Of course not, but many people look back on their young adulthood, before all the burdens and responsibilities placed on them, with kids, jobs car payments, pta meetings, dance, soccer, band, etc and mortgages, and they are a bit rueful, and think maybe they should have waited an extra year before moving out, or getting married or something similar. They may look back fondly on those memories and think maybe they jumped the gun a bit too soon.simpleton wrote: ↑March 31st, 2019, 4:38 pmYes in today's average mindset 25 is even to young, but back in Joseph's day and in biblical times they were all for their children marrying young.... the Virgin Mary was just 14... God sure didn't consider that to young, during the Nauvoo period Joseph as Mayor signed a city ordinance allowing girls to get married at 14 and boys at 16 WITH PARENTAL CONSENT... the idea I suppose to keep them out of the trouble they get into today.... getting married should be something to look forward to, as part of progression, not something to put off as the dreadful day.tdj wrote: ↑March 31st, 2019, 3:27 pmsimpleton wrote: ↑March 31st, 2019, 9:05 am
I think women shouldn't even go on missions. They have a greater mission to perform, ( or just as good as) and that is to be a co-creator with God, in the sacred home. And to teach/save the souls of their own offspring. And their reward will be just as good or great as the missionary that saves some souls in the field....
Oh, shoot, I forgot, that is not being politically correct...
I dont think women going on missions would affect that though. 18 to 21 is a bit young (IMO) for a kid to be married anyway. I think both benefit from not just the blessings of a mission, but from the chance to grow up a bit in a relatively safe and watched over environment.
I have a daughter who just recently turned 18. She's a fantastic kid with a bright future, and she wants to marry a righteous young man, and have about 8 kids. I think that's awesome but I've also told her to enjoy her youth and her freedom for awhile. Dont grow up any sooner then she has too. When those youthful, carefree days are gone, they are GONE.
I don't think 25 is too young. That's about the age when the brain truly gears into adulthood. In the old times it was typical for 14yr olds to marry because frankly, people didn't live as long. Women in particular, fared better in childbirth if they did it younger, vs when they were older. The maternal mortality rate was and is less for teenagers. Men didn't really have the same risks, so it was quite common for middle aged men to marry young maidens. But thanks to the longevity of humanity increasing, we have the luxury of extending childhood to 18, and youth to mid 20's. I'm just saying if I had it to do over again, I would have relished those years more and taken just a few years longer. I think I and my children would have done better if I had my first at around 25, and second at 30, instead of 21, and 25. But we don't know what we know, do we? Maybe it's not for everyone, but it's worth considering.
.