LDS Freedom Forum

mtm411 wrote: ↑March 31st, 2019, 5:56 pm I agree with your points except that teen pregnancy is actually quite high risk. It's as high risk as having a baby after 40, especially until they are about 19 or so. They are at a higher risk of death, preeclampsia, and birth defects. Before birth control, if you started having babies at 15, you were having them for 2 decades, plus and that took a toll.

tdj wrote: ↑March 31st, 2019, 5:15 pm

simpleton wrote: ↑March 31st, 2019, 4:38 pm

tdj wrote: ↑March 31st, 2019, 3:27 pm


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.

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.

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.

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.

Oh, yes, because their bodies are often still growing in their early teens. Yes, that makes sense.

brianj wrote: ↑March 31st, 2019, 5:45 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...).

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.

The email is only a notification that they received their call. The call is not in the email itself. Rather, there is a hyperlink in the email that takes them to a website where they can view their call.

simpleton wrote: ↑March 31st, 2019, 9:05 am

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.

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...

You know its funny, both with my mission and military service I found that neither environment is particularly suited to women and that the baggage they tend to bring to both far outweighs any positives they bring to the table. There were some great sister missionaries and some great female soldiers/airmen but they just brought more problems than they were worth. In the mission field they often had issues with cattyness, complainig, always having problems with their companions or their mission president, always given preferential treatment as far getting the nicer areas to proselytize in, they were usually treated better than Elders by the general populace. Not saying there weren't Elders that had problems with their companions or with complainig and bringing drama and that sort of thing but it happened with a much greater frequency and with a much higher percentage of Sisters than Elders.

Fast forward a few years and I'm in the Air Force and I saw a very similar situation except it was far worse because females are given lower PFT scores to meet and still given preferential treatment in so many areas and a lot of leeway for the purpose of being politically correct and this has wasted an enormous amout of our country's time and money and even mcost lives. I can't tell you how often a female joins the military, the government spends all kinds of money training her and then she gets pregnant and is undeployable so some man has to pick up her slack and deploy to a warzone in her place while she has a kid and gets light duty the rest of her enlistment on the tax payer dime.

This kind of stuff happens largely because we have attatched status to military service in America and women want a part of that status but don't want the responsibility that goes with it. In the Church I'm starting to see the same thing. There is no reason why we need more sister missionaries or why they need to serve the same length of time as the Elders but you see women complaining about it because we as members within the Church attach status to missionary service even though such service isn't really about status or bringing upon yourself belssings, that's just a side effect (potentially) and not the purpose of missionary service. The purpose to serve others and building up the Kingdom of God. The purpose of military service is not to show how tough and cool women can be (or men for that matter) its to do a job of killing and breaking things and we need the best people that are best suited to that and frankly those people are not females. But I digress.

Robin Hood wrote: ↑March 31st, 2019, 1:45 pm

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.

Fortunately, we quickly gave the Argies a good kicking.

Yep, you did! Mrs Thatcher has backbone and principles. Integrity too.

All us who served down there knew the military junta was just trying to “unify the country against a common enemy”. A year earlier the junta kicked sand in the face of Chile with some claim about the Beagle Islands. The Pope stepped in an called on both countries to calm down “your both catholic countries”.

A year later, they dusted up the Faulkland Islands row...

simpleton wrote: ↑March 31st, 2019, 4:38 pm

tdj wrote: ↑March 31st, 2019, 3:27 pm

simpleton wrote: ↑March 31st, 2019, 9:05 am

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.

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.

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.

I think it would be nice if every 19 year-old girl had a marriage proposal, because I think many if not most would take it, but that just doesn't happen. In fact, when I was at BYU, I noticed that the male RM's who were 23 and older only dated girls who were RM's. And I had a couple even tell me this. They saw the difference in maturity and wanted that in a spouse. They looked at us crazy 18-19 year old girls like we were babies -fun to hang out with but not marriage material. So it makes sense to me that offering the option to girls is good for them in making them more attractive, and will make them into better mothers. And men are putting off marriage until they are older, so that is the main issue you have to address if you want girls to start being mothers at an earlier age.

As far as performance as missionaries, in the last 10 years we've been a lot more impressed with the Sisters' maturity and social skills, and just overall attitude, than we have with the Elders. I wish it wasn't this way, but overall, it seems like morale is way down and is affecting the Elders particularly.