New missionary age

[Whistler]

I was pretty moody this weekend and was intensely critical of everything. But I really liked some talks.

[krebscout]

Yeah, the story just seemed counter to the theme of the talk and to the Personal Progress program itself, especially when the program is so flexible to adjust for the needs of the young woman. But whatevs, that's my one nitpicky thought in an overall gem of a Conference.

[Portia]

Warning: post contains a high rate of italics. And rambling. And French.

I was completely bouleversée by the announcement. It has taken me the full day and a half just to process my feelings.

I always, always, always wanted to serve a mission. I felt it was my personal duty and calling as much as any guy. When my freshman boyfriend left, I wanted nothing more than to be going there with him (like yayfulness, he had lost his scholarship, where my freshman year was stellar and then I experienced a steady academic decline.) From 19 to 20 I wrote for the Board, of course, and rather publicly announced my intent to leave on a mission. Instead, I got engaged, had a failed grad school venture, and then my mom fell ill. Twenty-one to twenty-three was not the high point of my life (there was a brief oasis of sanity near my twenty-second birthday when I had a job I liked and was not violently depressed, but otherwise, mostly a wash).

From twenty-three-and-a-half to the present, I have been a useful member of society, gainfully employed, in better mental and physical health, and - suprise! (yes, it was genuinely surprising to me) - came to something of a détente both with The Church (mostly reconciled) and The Guy (mostly gone our separate ways). I hardly blame the church itself for my dark night of the soul; however, hearing this announcement brought back a lot of those feelings. I felt that I should be on a mission, and I think a reasonable conclusion that this belief, whether correct or not, sabotaged my relationship, my academic success, and eventually my happiness, because of course I thought in the back of my mind that I was making a mistake. In my darker moments, I've sometimes wondered if just as people go on about all the blessings missionary service brings to one's family, if my Failure somehow brought plagues upon my family's head. Yes, sure, I'm not a dude and it's a priesthood obligation, but I always felt it to be a personal obligation, and in my opinion, ignore your "promptings" at your own peril, whether they be from God or from intuition or "an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard."

But then, I think a large part of what doomed me was that my figurative crise de cœur was directly precipitated by a panic attack about the temple wedding; basically, I couldn't go through with it. So who's to say that the same wouldn't have happened with the temple rites required before a mission? Perhaps not mixing up another human's life into it, and the temporary nature of a mission versus the non-temporary nature of a marriage would have made a difference; I don't know.

I guess I just feel a lot of regret about not having gone, and perhaps a wistful pang that such an announcement came too late for me. Yes, there are parts of a mission that would be difficult (I think ladies' garments are an aesthetic abomination; I'm sure women thought likewise of previous longjohn-like incarnations), and 18 months of enforced abstinence of all physical contact from the opposite sex sounds like torture. But it wouldn't have been then. The saddest words of tongue or pen ...

And of course, I'm unmarried and could technically go. But realistically? My brother, who was a year too old for the change to affect him, will be departing shortly, and I am committed to finishing a degree (which is not as romantic to preaching to the heathens but d____d necessary at this point in the game!). And a certain line that the preacher's daughter yells in Footloose is relevant. (Hahaha!) I suppose I could "repent," but I think such repentance would feel hollow because I don't think a lot of what I did was wrong. And it seems disingenuous to turn around and tell unsuspecting Salvadorans or Kiwis or Hoosiers to abide by a standard that I was unwilling to abide myself, regardless of my present actions. Also, though I think attempted marriage at 21 was a bad idea for me, 25, 26, 27 doesn't seem to be too full of folly. Curse you COB for plaguing me with self-doubt!

[Katya]

(I think ladies' garments are an aesthetic abomination; I'm sure women thought likewise of previous longjohn-like incarnations)

Historical note: My understanding is that in the early days of the Church, garments weren't worn 24/7, but just in the temple.

[C is for]

Curse you COB for plaguing me with self-doubt!

COB = Church Office Building?

I feel wrongly maligned. And so does Chilly!

I'm Portia's age and personally I am very grateful that the announcement didn't come out when I was 19. All it would've meant for me was more pressure to go when I never really wanted to. (I have a lot of sympathy for 19-year-old girls now, for the pressure that they're undoubtedly going to face when some of them don't want to serve and they're going to start getting questions two years sooner and it's awkward.)

And, really, the only reason I was entertaining the idea of going at 21 was because I needed to go to the doctor and get my cancer diagnosed. I got out of so many things because of that! It was great.

[Katya]

I'm Portia's age and personally I am very grateful that the announcement didn't come out when I was 19. All it would've meant for me was more pressure to go when I never really wanted to. (I have a lot of sympathy for 19-year-old girls now, for the pressure that they're undoubtedly going to face when some of them don't want to serve and they're going to start getting questions two years sooner and it's awkward.)

That's a good point and one I'd not thought about. (I should have, though, because I certainly got a lot of pressure from certain people when I turned 21.)

[NerdGirl]

^^^ That is exactly how I feel. I never really wanted to go on a mission (although I considered it because I wanted to go to the temple, but then I figured out that you could go to the temple without going on a mission). I prayed about it and fasted about it on multiple occasions and got a very strong answer that it was not the right thing for me to do. Being away from my family with nothing but letters and being with a companion 24/7 would all have been very bad for my mental health and honestly I probably would have had some sort of breakdown and gotten sent home early. But I actually got a lot of pressure from people in my home ward when I turned 21 and wasn't married (and it lasted until I was about 25 or so before people just kind of gave up). Like it was any of their business what I was doing.

I do really think the change is great for women who want to go earlier, and it's good that men can choose to go right after high school instead of having to interrupt college to go (although it would have been really great if men and women could go at the same age!!!). But I worry about there being more pressure on women to go now, and I also worry about men who turn 18 earlier being pressured to drop out of high school to go. That might sound crazy, but I've been in wards where that would happen.

[C is for]

But I worry about there being more pressure on women to go now, and I also worry about men who turn 18 earlier being pressured to drop out of high school to go. That might sound crazy, but I've been in wards where that would happen.

Well, considering one of the requirements is that they've graduated high school, I doubt that the bishops/stake presidents would be encouraging their young men to drop out once they come of age. Stake presidents for sure, I guess it depends on how zealous the bishop is.

[NerdGirl]

But I worry about there being more pressure on women to go now, and I also worry about men who turn 18 earlier being pressured to drop out of high school to go. That might sound crazy, but I've been in wards where that would happen.

Well, considering one of the requirements is that they've graduated high school, I doubt that the bishops/stake presidents would be encouraging their young men to drop out once they come of age. Stake presidents for sure, I guess it depends on how zealous the bishop is.

Ok, good, I must have missed that part! Has that always been a requirement? Because I actually do know a couple of men who dropped out of high school and went on missions at 19.

[Whistler]

I guess I never felt the need to serve a mission, but sometimes I wish I had, because then I would have lots of cool stories to tell.

[Genuine Article]

But I worry about there being more pressure on women to go now, and I also worry about men who turn 18 earlier being pressured to drop out of high school to go. That might sound crazy, but I've been in wards where that would happen.

Well, considering one of the requirements is that they've graduated high school, I doubt that the bishops/stake presidents would be encouraging their young men to drop out once they come of age. Stake presidents for sure, I guess it depends on how zealous the bishop is.

Ok, good, I must have missed that part! Has that always been a requirement? Because I actually do know a couple of men who dropped out of high school and went on missions at 19.

I feel like they said they needed to graduate from high school before going to nip the zealous-drop-out problem in the bud, but it made me wonder about tying in an educational requirement. Yes, it's good to graduate, but high school's not for everyone and I don't think a lack of education should necessarily exclude people from serving. They probably didn't mean it that way, but maybe they did, or maybe that's always been a requirement and I just never knew it.

[Giovanni Schwartz]

I think that the high school graduation requirement is specifically for 18 year olds, in order to (as everyone said) prevent an over eager youngster from dropping out of school to go serve. I don't think it's a requirement for 19 year olds, because if they were going to graduate, by that point they probably had.

[NerdGirl]

Okay, that all sounds pretty reasonable. GA, I definitely agree that a lack of high school shouldn't prevent someone from going on a mission. There's definitely a difference between someone who wasn't going to finish high school anyway and dropped out and then went on a mission at 19 and someone who was going to turn 18 in, say, October of their senior year deciding to put in their papers and then come back and maybe try to get a GED afterwards. So it seems very reasonable to say that you can go at 19, or you can go at 18 as long as you have finished high school. Because if they let people go at 18 without having graduated, at least in one ward I've been in, there would be so much pressure on the kids to go before graduating and to "just have enough faith" to not worry about what would happen when they came back and were 20 and didn't have a high school diploma. People would be be getting up in testimony meeting and saying that they had had a revelation that all of these boys needed to not put off their missions for something as worldly as a high school diploma.

[Portia]

I think a high school degree should be an across-the-board requirement.

[Portia]

And in terms of other talks, I don't particularly connect with Elder Holland - he often strikes me as overwrought - but my man Uchtdorf represented, as usual.

And Oaks' condemnation of single and gay parenthood led me back to the drawing board. His BYU-grad mother was widowed by her ophthamologist husband when young Dallin was 7. She never remarried, and pretty much singlehandedly kicked mid-20th-century butt. She went to grad school at Columbia! So it just strikes me as silly to start throwing around "we can assume" statements when, well, no, we can't, unless you're a sociologist. Of course the social issues around a divorcée, an unwed mother, and a widow are all different (for instance, Mrs. Oaks was unusually well-educated and presumably her physician husband had a decent life insurance policy), but a part of me wants to be like, "You! You are a success! Blanket generalizations are dangerous things, Oaks!"

[bobtheenchantedone]

...there would be so much pressure on the kids to go before graduating and to "just have enough faith" to not worry about what would happen when they came back and were 20 and didn't have a high school diploma. People would be be getting up in testimony meeting and saying that they had had a revelation that all of these boys needed to not put off their missions for something as worldly as a high school diploma.

Urk. To think that there are actually people who think like this gives me a sad.

[krebscout]

And Oaks' condemnation of single and gay parenthood led me back to the drawing board. His BYU-grad mother was widowed by her ophthamologist husband when young Dallin was 7. She never remarried, and pretty much singlehandedly kicked mid-20th-century butt. She went to grad school at Columbia! So it just strikes me as silly to start throwing around "we can assume" statements when, well, no, we can't, unless you're a sociologist. Of course the social issues around a divorcée, an unwed mother, and a widow are all different (for instance, Mrs. Oaks was unusually well-educated and presumably her physician husband had a decent life insurance policy), but a part of me wants to be like, "You! You are a success! Blanket generalizations are dangerous things, Oaks!"

Yeah, Oaks did tread into some...unsubstantiated waters (here's a little article about it — http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/10/09/m ... parenting/), which was really too bad. One step forward and one step back?

[Craig Jessop]

You know, if he understands that blanket generalizations are dangerous things he would certainly be wary of making ones that were unsubstantiated and uninspired. So if he made one... food for thought. (yes, yes, that was a very unpopular thing to say, but I think that before dismissing what a man who is ostensibly a prophet said we ought to give it serious consideration)

[Marduk]

You know, if he understands that blanket generalizations are dangerous things he would certainly be wary of making ones that were unsubstantiated and uninspired. So if he made one... food for thought. (yes, yes, that was a very unpopular thing to say, but I think that before dismissing what a man who is ostensibly a prophet said we ought to give it serious consideration)

He's not speaking prophetically here. He specifically reiterated that this was evidentiary. "Studies show...." leaves one open to being shut down when it is proven that studies do not, in fact, support your argument. He appealed to the empirical data, and quite frankly, the empirical data broke his argument. It is that simple.

[bobtheenchantedone]

I have to admit that not only did Oak's talk make me a little uncomfortable (treading dangerous waters and all that) but I was very surprised that it seemed to rely so heavily on studies and data and what not. It seemed a little too scientific and not enough inspiration for conference, at least to me.