posted
In this thread, Samuel Bush wrote of a church that
quote: holds the whole package up as a shining “ideal” complete with lots and lots of testimonials on how blessed and wonderful temple marriage and parenthood are. (And they are, don’t get me wrong, but still . . .) And then all too often gears a lot of it’s programs and activities with the “ideal” in mind.
He was talking about the ideal of Eternal Marriage, but he didn't mention the one aspect of the "culture of the ideal" that bothers me most. I am talking about the idea of ultra-selectivity in choosing a spouse. More specifically, I'm talking about the indoctrination of LDS girls from the time that they enter the Young Women program that the only way they will be happy is if they marry a returned missionary in the Temple.
Now I have no problem with the admonition to have a Temple Marriage, but since I am a 22 year-old member of the Church who has not served a mission, I take great umbrage that it seems to be a "requirement for happiness" to marry a returned missionary.
You see, I feel that I am a pretty good Latter-Day Saint. I might even say that if someone married me, they would have a faithful husband with a strong testimony who is willing to work hard at being a helpmeet and share the blessings of raising a family. But in the past, for various reasons, I did not serve a mission. It would seem from listening to talks given in sacrament meeting that this fact somehow makes me unworthy to even consider as someone to date, much less marry.
Is this not the gospel of Repentance, and Forgiveness? Do we not learn that the Atonement of the Savior has the power to change the hearts of men, and that whatever someone's past is, it matters very little compared to the person they are now? Yet I hear talk after talk admonishing Young Women to be sure that whatever they do, they must always "marry a returned missionary in the Temple."
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just don't worry about it. That kind of stuff isn't sponsored by the church at all. I have NO idea where the whole "Only marry an RM" thing came from...Suffice it to say, I went out with a girl who said she would never ever even think of marrying anyone who hadn't served a mission. She's now married to an 18 year-old (She was 17 when I went out with her...Nothing is wierder than being able to say, "I was is grade school before you were born" about someone you go on a date with).
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If a girl is shallow enough to make that a priority (and having been through the church's Young Women's program, I can say that I've never heard it taught in an official capacity), she's not worth your time and effort in the first place.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think this phenomenon, while it will always be present in some form, is going to see a decline. With the recent changes that have been made as to who can and cannot server a mission, there will be many more worthy young men who were unable to serve a full-time proselyting mission for one reason or another.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just to clarify one thing. I haven't had a particular amount of trouble with girls refusing to consider me for a date just because I didn't serve a mission. Fortunately for me, the girls in my singles ward are a bit more willing to accept the idea that non-RMs are O.K., too. Maybe it's because there is a higher percentage of recent converts in my ward.
However, my point is that this DOES happen in other wards. I DO hear the "doctrine" of marrying an RM taught in wards I visit, albeit always in an unofficial capacity. My concern isn't with the actual beliefs of the church; it's with the cultural beliefs of the church and how often it is allowed to be taught as doctrine.
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's been one of my biggest gripes about LDS meetings. Somehow people just don't get what is really being said most of the time. Some of this has made me not even want to go to church, because if people are going to just assume things about other people / doctrine, then what is the point of me going and trying to learn from these people?
I've talked to some ex-mormon friends that I am more comfortable with talking about religion and spirituality than I do in my own ward, because what I might say in my ward would be "TABOO". When in reality I'm asking the questions no one wants to ask.
I for one have experienced this same "non-RM" phenomenon, and all it does is prove to me that they don't know what to really look for, and don't know what is really going on, because they aren't putting forth the effort of actually learning about people, and the scriptures.
Posts: 1132 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's the same retarded culture that says a girl is an old maid at 21.
I think the (NON-DOCTRINAL, FOLKLORE) "only marry an RM" came about for two reasons: 1) to not go used to be (I say used to be because it is getting harder to be able to serve a mission) largely a matter of choice, and it was often a choice to ignore a priesthood obligation and value other things more. Don't jump on me - there are a thousand stories, and what a person is today most certainly matters more than what they were before. I agree that ignoring that fact is denying the Atonement. Considering some of the elders I knew on my mission and some RMs I've dated, a mission is NO assurance of anything good. But I think that was the idea.
Reason Two: Telling the girls to marry RMs might have been an indirect way of motivating the guys to go. And you know what? It worked. My brother was tipped over into the decision to go because my mother told him that the girl he loved wanted to marry an RM. Of course, that particular girl eloped with a 19-year-old three weeks before my brother came home from his mission and she asked me to be the one to tell him, but so it goes.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I had once vowed that I would only marry a returned sister missionary, because I had been so impressed with all the ones I had served with. Then I met my wife.
I guess there is always the question of why you didn't serve a mission. Most people won't ask, and hopefully they will be glad you are active in the Church regardless of any past circumstances. But I think you have become somewhat of a risk, and the idea of not taking risks does seem to float around Sunday School lessons. That kind of conservativism kind of wears off as you experience more of life, but it's probably a more or less conscious consideration for an 18-21 year old young woman. You can point out the flaws of that kind of thinking all you want, but it's there.
The truth is, of course, that you can be perfectly capable of being a good husband and father and fulfilling all of your vows to that effect regardless of whether or not you served a mission.
I am glad that there isn't doctrine about not marrying a non-Eagle Scout. Alas, I only made it to Tenderfoot, but my wife can overlook that.
[ December 05, 2004, 01:33 AM: Message edited by: advice for robots ]
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Point 1: My dad never served a mission. He was a convert, but he was given the opportunity but decided not to. Courting my mom had something to do with it, I'm purely convinced.
Point 2: My mom (a life-long mormon farm girl) was counselled by a few friends and family members against dating my dad, mostly on the grounds that he was a convert to the Church.
Point 3: Both of my older brothers served missions, experiences which I think served truly great purposes both where they served and back home in our family. I believe that in addition to serving the greater work of the church that serving a mission has a secondary bonus of teaching maturity and much-needed life skills.
Point 4: In the case of my second brother; he was ordained an elder by three great, upstanding priesthood holders who were good members, good husbands and good fathers. None of them had served missions.
I see the RM stigma way more at BYU than I do back in Arkansas. It's all a culture thing.
Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's one of those things where the general idea is that if they served a mission, then they'll be a good, worthy member. I fully realize that this is not always the case, but it's a hope.
And I think some of it can come from the fact that as a YW, there's not a lot more attractive (haha, maybe this is just what we went thru in my unit) than a righteous missionary. So, it makes sense to want to marry a return one.
Posts: 119 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think going on a mission is much like going to college--the only quality that graduating college ultimately proves is discipline. Going on the mission only proves that, at the least, you're willing to live the LDS structure. (granted, it can and does mean much more to many, but that's the only thing you can universally assume)
The girls who won't date a non-RM are like the companies who won't upset the status quo by hiring qualified people without college degrees--probably not worth the trouble.
I think it's pretty much the guys who go on missions just to have gone who are going to get the women who are most concerned with going through the motions. Let them have each other, I say.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
My wife and I were engaged before I served my mission. I could have backed out and married her without serving, but I needed the extra 2 years maturity that a mission gave me, and both of us wouldn't have felt right if we had married without me serving first. Not because Llyn wanted to marry an RM, but because we knew I had an obligation to serve.
My first companion told me about his dating experiences at BYU before his mission, where he knew guys who weren't RMs who would wrap masking tape around their legs just above the knee, because their dates would casually rub their hand over that part of their legs to check if they were wearing temple garments (meaning they were RMs), and the tape fooled them into thinking they were!! Apparently they couldn't get dates otherwise...
Our daughter married a wonderful guy she met at BYU Hawaii, not an RM (wishes he had served, but made decisions that stopped him from going). We couldn't ask for a better husband for her or son-in-law for us. They were sealed in the temple a year after their marriage.
Our youngest son is 22. He hasn't served a mission, and although we haven't given up hope (although we have stopped holding our breath), he probably won't. He dates non members, but still expects at some stage to marry in the temple. I have no idea whether his not having served a mission will impact on that, but hope that the right girl for him would not be so shallow as to think that's the only criteria. It's not. It tells you something about the quality of a person, but only something, not everything.
Posts: 867 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I remember hearing similar things as a YW and YSA, but it was much more cultural as opposed to doctrine. (But then we were also taught that every single one of us, no exception, was raised by righteous parents who loved us unconditionally. Yeah, I nearly screamed at that one, and it was actually the reason I left that YSA branch. Zero perspective, zero maturity.)
Dare I say that with me, it obviously didn't stick? Not only did I not marry an RM, my husband isn't even Christian. He's Muslim.
The further I got away from dense LDS centers, the less it was taught or talked about. Here in Sri Lanka, it's not even a consideration. Members of the church openly and without criticism of any kind marry Buddhists, Hindus, Christians of other faiths. But then, there aren't a whole lot of options here. And at the same time, I don't get a lot of weird looks when they hear that I married a Muslim. But from foreigners from, say, Utah, I get the pitying looks and sighs. Oh well.
It's true, it happens. But it's not a universal attitude. Who cares? Live your life in the best way possible for you and it all works out.
Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"It would seem from listening to talks given in sacrament meeting that this fact somehow makes me unworthy to even consider as someone to date, much less marry."
So what you do is, you date and marry a non-Mormon, who honestly couldn't care less about whether you served on a mission or not.
You haven't considered it? Then you're part of the problem you're complaining about. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, if your religion is important to you, it makes sense to prefer to marry within your religion. Depending on the level of importance, this preference might be strong enough to become a necessity.
posted
"Depending on the level of importance, this preference might be strong enough to become a necessity."
Oh, absolutely. But then there's no point in complaining about women who'll only date RMs, handsome men, or rich men; in each case, their preference is simply strong enough to seem a necessity.
It's like saying "I only date nice men" or "I only date men with hair;" if any preference strong enough to seem a necessity can be considered a necessity, then we shouldn't go around rolling our eyes when somebody breaks up with somebody else because he wore the wrong sweater.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not analogous, Tom. One is something from the past, and the other chooses the future.
If the complaint was that the girls in his ward wouldn't date him all because he refuses to act like he believes any of it and they can't get married in the temple if they marry him, then your analogy would hold.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, just to be clear, choosing a husband based on doctrine is sound logic, but choosing a husband based on personal preference is silly?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Choosing a husband based on a shared future is logical, but choosing a husband based on an irrelevant past is silly.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
But who is to say that the past is irrelevant? If I was once arrested for murder, but am now out of prison and swear up and down that I have reformed, is it unreasonable for some women to avoid me anyway?
Obviously, this is an outrageous example. But the same applies: why are these girls silly and shallow to believe that, because he either shirked his "duty" or was found unsuitable for a mission, he may not be as "good" a Mormon as someone who did serve?
I'm not saying that I believe that, mind you. (In fact, I'll come right out and say that I don't.) But given how much importance Mormon society places on the mission as, in essence, verification of someone's self-worth, it seems obvious that such dating preferences are merely symptomatic of a larger problem.
In other words, until missions stop being seen as semi-mandatory and desirable things, people who serve will always get bonus points with the ladies.
---
BTW, on a similar topic, I was just wondering this morning why -- if the "let God sort it out" philosophy is becoming more popular when choosing whether or not to seal someone -- Mormons who marry non-Mormons don't just get automatically sealed to the non-Mormon when they die, even if they don't receive the social benefit of a sealing while alive. After all, if God can sort out everything else, and people can be posthumously baptized Mormon anyway, wouldn't a posthumous sealing of this sort theoretically remove part of the stigma inherent to cross-faith unions?
quote:So, just to be clear, choosing a husband based on doctrine is sound logic, but choosing a husband based on personal preference is silly?
No having a preference based on an incomplete and inaccurate conception of the doctrine one professes is silly.
Dagonee P.S., obvioulsy, I don't know enough about LDS doctrine to know if their interpetation is correct.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that's fine. It's the same thing that playing the piano gets bonus points with me. I don't play the piano, I don't own a piano, and it's definitely possible to have a happy relationship with someone who doesn't play the piano, but the fact that he does play means he had enough discipline to learn and enough love of music to keep practicing as an adult. It's sexy. Other things being equal, I'd rather have the one who plays than the one who could have learned to play and doesn't.
quote:Mormons who marry non-Mormons don't just get automatically sealed to the non-Mormon when they die, even if they don't receive the social benefit of a sealing while alive.
They do - when both die, they are sealed by proxy.
*turns skirt backwards* Sealing is not a guarantee of a celestial marriage. I think a celestial marriage is like a conversion - the ordinance is only the outward manifestation, but if it doesn't exist within the person, that outward manifestation isn't going to do any good. In other words, if a couple was sealed in the temple but they treat each other without respect and simply endure the relationship instead of creating a good one, there's not going to be a celestial relationship afterwards (or else it is going to be much, much, much harder to achieve one).
posted
Hmm...I was going to raise the whole "marry someone from a different religion" question but it appears we've already broached that subject.
I think there's another consideration here. If RM status confers some status WITHIN the church for both the former missionary and his/her spouse, then it could become VERY important for folks who view themselves as taking on roles within the church, no?
So, it's possible that this whole marriage "bias" is tied up in things more far reaching than just a personal preference. It could be viewed as a wise career move, a way to demonstrate one's readiness for leadership in the broader community, in short, a measure of the likelihood of future success within the LDS community.
I'm not saying that's the case, but I sure have gotten the impression over the years that this is one of those "shared experience" things that can become a natural separator -- those who have done it and those who have not lack the shared experience and thus have more trouble communicating than would otherwise be the case.
These things are in all our lives. I mean, I can communicate more easily with people who grew up in the 1960's than I can with people who grew up in the 40's or the 80's. People who were in the military talk more easily among themselves than with those who never served. And on and on. I was an altarboy and went to Catholic school back when nuns were allowed to thwack the kids. Different shared experiences make us more similar to insiders, but less similar to outsiders.
It's not necessarily a bad thing.
But if the community values something, it stands to reason that it's going to be difficult for those who lack that thing to "overcome" that lack and be viewed (or view themselves) as full contributing members.
Frankly, I'm impressed that the LDS is recognizing this issue and trying to reinforce the notion that serving or not serving on a mission trip is not the measure of ones worth to the community. Getting the actual people involved to go along and act accordingly might be another matter, but at least the official position (as I'm hearing it here) isn't one of segregation and relegation to second-class status.
posted
Well, there is a reason for the "bonus points". A mission is an incredibly maturing process, one which focusses you beyond yourself and onto the welfare of others, often at great personal sacrifice and hardship. Its lifestyle is pretty much the exact opposite of what most "normal" 19 year old males are fixated on: cars and girls and self indulgence. So a girl who is looking for an RM for a husband has some kind of awareness that her potential mate has certain qualities of maturity level, attitudes to others,and unselfishness that can set him apart from those who haven't served a mission. Of course, this is all general principles and the specifics don't necessarily hold up. There are plenty of RMs who are selfish and immature, but in general, a mission that hea been served faithfully has a very positive impact on the person.
Posts: 867 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think there's another consideration here. If RM status confers some status WITHIN the church for both the former missionary and his/her spouse, then it could become VERY important for folks who view themselves as taking on roles within the church, no?
So, it's possible that this whole marriage "bias" is tied up in things more far reaching than just a personal preference. It could be viewed as a wise career move, a way to demonstrate one's readiness for leadership in the broader community, in short, a measure of the likelihood of future success within the LDS community.
It's really not like that - it just isn't. Even a calling like Stake President or Bishop lasts less than a decade. There's no such thing as a "career" in church leadership except for a handful, and that usually takes place after their secular careers are through. The thought of going on a mission in order to try and impress future church leaders is icky.
What's even ickier is the idea of social-climbing girls who treat RMs like they are med students. I suppose there's an idiot out there somewhere who does that, but in all my life in the church in Utah and Texas I've never met a single one.
It IS true that the Elders' Quorum president is ten times cute the day after he gets called, but it's a temporary thing. The day he's released, the chair-setting-up and home-teacher-assigning glamour is gone.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hm. Based on the last few posts, it seems to me that there's no actual disadvantage to looking outside the Mormon community for a spouse, especially if there's still a possiblity of celestial marriage.
Is that the case, Kat?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
marrying a nonmember != against a commandment
But...
It means going to church by yourself. It means there's an entire part of your life that your other half doesn't share. It means in a thousand little decisions, you have to choose whether to spend time in church, on callings, with scriptures, and in the temple, or with your spouse. If you have kids, it means that in a very major area of life, you're not united in what you're teaching them.
And that's if they are friendly and simply uninterested. If they are hostile, it means every time you choose your religion, you are choosing something they hate. That just can't be good for a marriage.
What it often, often means is that the church member is forced to choose between their religion and their spouse, and that would suck. Honestly, they usually give up their religion. If they are honest with themselves and they do (did - testimonies fade if you don't work at it) drop away from the church, it can be really sad.
There are lots of part-member families that work, but I think they have to talk about it a lot, and go in without any illusions. One of my best friends (former roommate) from college married a non-member that had been in love with her for years, and she did it with her parents' blessing, and, more importantly, the Lord's blessing. He also worships the ground she walks on, and they'd been friends for ten years. But they talked about it a LOT, and he completely supports her. That was their deal - she loved him, would marry him with no expectation that he'd change his mind, did NOT want him to join the church for her because she loved and respected that he didn't want to lie and fake it, but he needed to support her in it. He goes to church with her. She's very happy, and I'm happy for her. Slightly envious. Sometimes.
posted
This thread backs up what Geoff said in another thread and my impressions. Thanks for the honest look at Mormon culture, you guys. Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
[preface]I'm writing to clarify what must've been a false impression I created in my last post. Also, I should clarify that I use the term "bias" in a less loaded way than one might suspect on first reading. A bias is simply a leaning in one direction or another, not necessarily a social evil thing -- just a preference by a group for one thing over another. I think that's the original meaning of the term, but I perhaps should choose on that's become less of a trigger.[/preface]
I think there are hundreds of ways that a community can reinforce a preference in favor of one type of shared experience and, ipso facto, create barriers for those who lack that experience. I didn't mean to say that it'd be a way to earn a "career" in the church when I said "wise career move." That was intended as saying "one who shares that experience might expect to benefit from the ties one forms and the bond shared by others who have the same background." If going on a mission gets someone the "shared experience valued by the group," then there should be some benefit accruing to that. That may carry over to buiding networks and doing business preferentially with associates with that same experience. "Hey, I've got a buddy who..., he'll do a good job for you, etc."
If that preference also extends to things like station within the church, or just plain "respect," to whatever extent, then, for those who desire standing within the church, it could (and should) influence people's decisions about whether to go on a mission or not.
At any rate, since I know nothing about careers WITHIN the LDS, I wasn't really makikng any statement about whether going on a mission would open doors to money-making opportunities within the church structure/hierarchy, per se, or employment by the LDS in any official capacity.
So, does going on a mission affect things like how a person is treated? Does it ever affect what assignments they get and when they get them (i.e., earlier in their life if they went on a mission, perhaps later if they didn't?) That sort of thing? Does the phrase "I went on a mission" translate to instant recognition of the person having attained a particular status or level of trustworthiness? I'm asking if it has MEANING to another LDS person. "Oh, so and so went on a mission" means "he or she has their stripes" so to speak.
That's the sort of thing I was talking about in terms of how a community can work to reward behavior that is part of the "ideal."
And thus, put some value beyond the simple maturational effects on that experience.
Nothing could be more natural. In fact, I'd be surprised if that sort of thing wasn't the norm, really.
Given that you've all said that going on a mission has value within the LDS, I would expect that it is in some (and really many) way(s) supported overtly by the community, and even supported just as often in unspoken and natural, unacknowledged ways.
Nothing wrong with that. It's the way we're wired as humans and communities of humans.
Separate to Cashew: Are you are saying is that you notice something "different" and somehow "better" (in terms of their suitability as marriage partners, especially) about the young men who come back from a mission trip? I'd be interested in hearing what those might be. But be warned -- and maybe I shouldn't reopen this topic -- we had a HUGE thread about this a few months ago. I'd go search for it but I'm pretty hopeless with the UBB search function. Anyway, the upshot was that most of us came away convinced that young men aren't generally living the stereotype you mentioned, and that there are lots of valid maturational experiences. So we should probably NOT reopen that discussion if we can avoid it. Hoping you can tell me what differences you see in LDS men who come home from a mission trip versus those who never take one.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The difference between the two scenarios we've been discussing as more or less parallel:
Serving a mission is not mandatory. There are no ordinances available to returned missionaries that are not available to others. There are many, many church leaders (even stake presidents I've had in the past) that did not serve missions, and are ranked no lower (if the concpet of ranking can be applied to the church's lay clergy, which it really can't) than anyone else.
A temple sealing is a different affair. Marrying outside of the temple forfeits certain ordinances and blessings in a very doctrinal sense. Only those who are sealed to a worthy spouse can attain the highest level of exaltation in the next life. No merit can make up for missing ordinances.
This is not to say that those who do not marry in the temple in their physical life are denied these blessings; that is the entire reason the LDS church places so much importance on temple work for the dead. However, marrying outside of the temple (or outside of the faith) is strongly discouraged on a simple statistical basis. Marriages between two church members that are not temple marriages are statistically more likely to fail.
It is also unfair to the children (and here is where my opinion begins) to raise them in a home of conflicting faiths when one is such a lifestyle religion. I grew up with a mother who had joined the LDS church and a father who had been a member as a child but had been entirely inactive since. I remember running into his bedroom every Sunday morning, jumping up onto his bed and saying "Papa, are you going to come to church this week?" Every time he would say, "No, not this week," it would break my heart.
I realize now that this was his choice. Under no situation should he have been forced to live a religion he didn't espouse. Nor would I have encouraged my mother to leave him on the grounds of religious difference. The fact that she stayed married for so many years so that the oldest of her children could have a cohesive family is something that I will always be grateful for.
However, I will never put my children in that situation. I will not marry someone of a different faith, not because I think they are bad people, but because I think family unity too vital to be sacrificed. This doesn't mean I wouldn't consider dating someone outside of my own religion (were I considering dating); but I would not marry outside of the temple.
Perhaps some see this as judgemental. I see it as a way of ensuring (the best I can - I'm not pretending that people are predictable) the most happiness possible for my children as well as following the commandment (yes, in the Doctrine and Covenants, I think temple marriage being a commandment is fairly obvious) of marrying "withing the covenant."
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Annie, was that in answer to my post or an earlier one? If mine, I wasn't really saying that people COULDN'T rise to positions of authority within the LDS church without a mission trip in their background -- how would I know that anyway? I was asking if having a mission trip conferred advantages within the church either officially or by popular opinion/consensus (even unwittingly)?
For example, it might be that people who go on mission trips are generally judged as ready for greater responsibility earlier (say in their early to mid 20's) whereas those who didn't go on a mission trip might eventually attain the same types of positions but do so a few years later. That'd be an overt benefit of going on missions.
An unofficial kind of consensus thing would be something like people asking whether so-and-so went on a mission trip and then, if the answer was "yes" feeling more secure about that person. Or if the answer was "no" then going on to ask more detailed questions about his/her lifestyle, etc.
That sort of thing -- that having been on a mission is a sign of something that substitutes or supplements the understanding of a person in terms of public opinion.
That's a non-overt benefit of going on a mission.
Since there's value placed on going on a mission, I expect that there'd be both overt and non-overt benefits to having done so.
Of course, I'm viewing it as kind of a "right of passage" thing. Maybe it doesn't really function that way. It just seems like that's the kind of thing you all are describing.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob, in the Utah LDS culture, I would say that what you describe is, generally speaking, true. Now, I use the words "Utah LDS culture" very hesitantly. I am no anthropologist, and I understand that there are many exceptions to what I understand to be the "Utah LDS culture." I do think that I am safe to say that many Mormons, especially in areas in which there is a high density of Mormons, that see serving a mission as sot of an automatic guarantor of higher character and more favorable personal characteristics. This is because of the unique opportunities for spiritual and personal growth that the mission provides. Those who haven't served a mission miss out on those particular growth opportunities, so the idea is that they aren't as mature.
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have actively participated in making assignments (or callings) for leadership positions on a local level in the church. I have never heard a mission, or lack thereof, used as a reason for a person to receive or not receive a calling. I have had leaders in just about every capacity who didn't serve missions.
In fact, for many who didn't serve missions, they felt that having that position in the church was their "mission" of sorts. My dad didn't serve a mission, and he was estatic when he was asked to work in an Asian branch (small ward) of our church. He and my mom were given major responsiblities, and they loved it and consider what they learned and gained comparable to what they would have learned from going on a mission. (but with five kids and full-time jobs)
As far as dating non-returned missionaries....I always figured that they told us that so that we (the girls) wouldn't date 19 year olds and keep them from serving a mission. I stopped thinking that it was "necessary" about the time I started dating. I think that going on a mission shows a certain committment (if you went for the right reasons), but not going doesn't equal not being committed to the church.
posted
Bob, I know what you're talking about, but it just isn't there. That doesn't happen. Perhaps for a few years after everybody gets home, there's a delineation, but by the time you're 25, your peers have stopped talking about their missions as a social ritual. In fact, it's kind of sad to still be identifying yourself by your mission after that age, because it means you haven't done anything since. There really, really isn't a social divide between those that have and those that haven't that lasts beyond a few years after coming home.
Brian, I believe you see one, but you're 22, right? People are still coming home from or are on them. The difference between the two groups really disappears.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
My 2 cents. I wanted to marry a returned missionary. My reasons for this were primarily that if they served a faithful mission (meaning they didn't go for the wrong reasons) that meant they were someone who was dedicated to their faith and would be more likely to remain so, thus ensuring the future family stability and happiness that Annie mentioned.
But had I met a man who didn't serve but I could see from his life and actions that he was dedicated to his faith, it wouldn't have stood in my way. Nuh-uh.
As it is, both Porter and I have served missions and we have never been given any sort of special status in callings. Of course, we are both fairly low-profile, which I think has far more effect on what callings someone may or may not be given than having served a mission. Basically, while that aspect might be there, I think it is small enough as to be insignificant in most cases. But then, I am speaking from my own experience and have no clue what motivates another person.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have found that there is still a degree of acceptance even among 30-something men in the Church based on whether you have served a mission. If you have, then you have a whole truckload of experiences in common with everyone else who has served a mission. And there are still plenty of "mission memories" conversations. You meet so many odd people as a missionary, your perspective is so focused, and you run into so many interesting situations. There's always a story to tell that can match the story someone else just told.
If you have served a mission, then you have a normal past. If you haven't, then you usually have some short, neutral five-word explanation for it that is told in the same breath as saying you did not serve a mission. It does kind of excludes you from participating in story-swapping and it adds a new facet to your past, I guess.
However, I've never seen not having served a mission viewed as a handicap. There are plenty of ways to serve in the Church that parallel and equal mission experiences--although without all the exoticness of a mission. From my observation, someone's current attitude is much more important than someone's past service in the Church. There will always be opportunities for the kind of blessings a mission might have provided, those and many more. It should never be seen as a handicap. As you get older and mature a bit, you start to recognize that.
[ December 06, 2004, 02:20 AM: Message edited by: advice for robots ]
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
