Missions have been on my mind lately for several reasons. One reason was I just just re-read Craig Harline’s book “Way below the Angels”. I highly recommend it for returned missionaries. My copy of the book (which I was lucky enough to get signed by the author when I had a nice chat with him) has been passed around quite a bit. I love the subtitle, “the pretty clearly troubled but not even close to tragic confessions of a real live Mormon missionary.” It can be helpful to realize others didn’t have miracles several times a day while on their missions – a thought that was seen as showing little faith (at least within my mission).
Another reason I am thinking about missions is I am in a season of life where my kids, their friends, and all the youth that I worked with over the years are serving missions. I can hardly keep track of who is about to go, gone, or come back. I have managed to keep track of MY kids though. Just a weeks ago I was able to spend a bit of time visiting one my mission areas when on a business trip. My mission was SO long ago, but still remember parts like they were yesterday. I was at this one area for quite a while and driving down the streets that I tracked over and over again brought back a ton of memories. That was comforting not only for remembering the good times, but also that I must not be suffering from memory loss in my old age (yet).
Some things have changed since I was on my mission. I think people would think a bit different about the rainbow discussions as “rainbow” has taken on a new meaning. No question there was pressure to go on a mission when I was young, but I have more than one friend that didn’t serve a mission. They both have stayed active, married in the temple, and served in many significant leadership positions. Looking back I think the pressure to go wasn’t quite as different as it is now, but it does seem the black mark of not going on a mission is written with a much wider tipped marker with much darker ink than in days past.
It seems like one of the trendy words in the church to use now is “salvific”. I must be a bit dyslexic as whenever I read the word I tend to read “Slavic”, but when I hear the word I tend to think that the root word is “salvia.” This fashionable word is defined as, “leading to salvation.” I have heard some talk about which ordinances of the gospel are salvific and which are not.
I heard someone say that a mission was not a salvific ordinance. Salvific ordinances are ones such as baptism and being sealed in the temple. It does seem clear that missions are not an absolute requirement given most of the top leaders of the church did not serve missions due to wars and other conflicts (even if some have able to go if they really wished). But to me it is clear that the pressure for young men to serve a mission has never been higher than it is now. I would argue the same is true for women. Even though the pressure coming from church leadership is substantial, there is much of it is cultural and social.
Some of this pressure certainly is from church leadership and some top leaders have even said the main reason for going on a mission is to convert the missionary. I think that the social and cultural pressures have also increased. Many of these pressures are before the mission age, but some deal with the consequences of not serving a mission. Not serving a mission usually will be disappointing to parents, friends, and local leaders. But if one desires to marry within the Mormon faith, not serving a mission is a substantial negative impact for young men – and to a lesser extent even for young women. There have been several posts on the Wheat & tares site (here and here for example) that dive into the statistics of activity going from youth, young single adult, and even single adults. The trend is clear that delaying marriage in the Mormon faith increases the probability of inactivity. I would be shocked if a young woman going through the young women’s program didn’t hear the phrase of “you have to have a temple marriage to a righteous young man” many times over. And to me as a young man it is clear that a truly “righteous young man” will be an returned missionary, or “RM”. So for a young man that wants to stay active in the church, but does not serve a mission is limiting his marriage pool within the Mormon population and thus increasing his chances of going inactive. The reverse is true also in that young men are told to marry a righteous young lady in the temple is a requirement. All other things being equal, an RM sister is going to be seen at least a bit more righteous than someone that did not go on a mission.
There is an additional pressure, and it seem especially to be true in Utah. It comes down to the dating scene. The dating prospects of a young man that didn’t serve a mission among single young women certainly is dictated on looks, personality, prospective earning potential, and certainly that “RM” status. I know of one young man that knew physically he probably couldn’t make it through a mission, but went anyway – partially to serve and even admittedly because, “you gotta be an RM to get chicks.” He made it more than a year before needing to come home for surgery and he was fine with his mission ending there and he proudly considered himself an RM (which was good for him because he was). So if one of the steps to salvation is to marry in the temple, a non-returned missionary has the odds stacked against them in the dating world.
I would also argue that the pressure is even on for young women, especially on the dating side. It seems it is getting closer to being an assumption that a “really good” young women will serve a mission. And a “really good” sister that is a return missionary potentially has a leg up on an equivalent peer that didn’t serve. For a women that wants to marry an RM, they can increase their “desirability” for male RM by being an RM themselves. Given the proportion of male RM’s compared to the number of women in the dating pool this could be a big factor.
This would be especially true in Utah where there are 3 active LDS single women for 2 men active LDS single men (see LDS dating crisis). It would not be hard to imagine if a young woman with a year or so into college without as many dates as she expected starts to think that they can make themselves more “attractive” by going on a mission.
Taken together, to me it feels that for young men and young women that desire to stay in the church, we as a culture certainly have moved more than just a little bit towards missions needing to be more than just the norm and to nearly a requirement. To not fall into the standardized mold of serving a mission, a young man can quickly diverge into “not on the right track” and seen as “less than” with real-life consequences. This isn’t limited to just young men as there seems to be rising pressures for young women to also.
I do want to mention that there are positive items with these pressures. I really like that more young women are going on missions. I am glad they have (limited) leadership roles now within the mission. In my experience a common issue I have found (mainly in the workplace, but certainly in the church) is on average women seem to have less self-confidence. I have seen many RM’s come back with much more confidence and that is a welcome positive. That change occurred with me. I leaned a bit towards a shy introvert up to my mission. I am absolutely still an introvert, but overcame most of my shyness on my mission. I am grateful for that. Even though my relationship with the church is complicated, I support my kids going on missions. This includes not only my sons, but my daughters. But I also tell them I am still fine if they don’t want to go and will support them in that decision.
Does it seem that missions are coming close to being “required” for young men and even somewhat for young women?
Wheat & Tares 
Great post. I’ve been a member of the church for thirty years and I’ve always thought that missions were “required.” I was told as soon as I started investigating the church (I was 16) that I’d be expected to go (I didn’t. It just didn’t seem worth the hassle.). I think the pressure we put on our young people is absurd, whether it has to do with remaining “clean” (i.e. don’t even THINK about sex) or making sure you get married in the temple (because THOSE marriages never fail) or going on a mission (It’s your “duty” to go and spread the gospel). I’ve seen a fair amount of missionaries in my stake return early, not because of some kind of major transgression, simply because either 1) their heart wasn’t in it and they were told to go home (so much for growing one’s faith on a mission) or 2) they were so riddled with anxiety/guilt that they weren’t “100% obedient” and therefore weren’t successful that they had panic attacks, breakdowns, etc. We really need to stop with mandating this crap. If it’s true that by our fruits people will know us and if we’re creating a whole generation of kids who think they’re losers if they don’t go on missions or don’t complete a “successful” mission (whatever that may mean) and we’re therefore driving a lot of these young people out of the church, then we are clearly doing it wrong. I can’t tell you how many people I’ve met over the years who left the church because they believed they were promised lots of blessings ( including the still-often and shamefully used inducement of having a “hot wife” if you worked hard)that didn’t come to fruition. Now some of that’s on them, but a lot of that, too, is on leadership that is willing to compromise and damage the spirits of people in order to maintain the rigid, obedience-centered status quo. IMHO, that’s something that true disciples of Christ wouldn’t do and therefore causes me to further doubt the aims of our leaders.
At least here on the east coast of the US, there’s definitely not that pressure. We’re trying hard just to keep our youth active and engaged as it is. We have only two serving missionaries but several youth of that age.
I’m honestly glad that we’re not obsessing about it that much here. There are many other opportunities for service, and I’d rather have a cohort of youth that are still coming to church but not serving missions.
Bro Sky—I joined the church at about the same age (in Utah) and also got a lot of pressure to serve. I also chose not to serve for several reasons (worthiness was not among them). I don’t regret it a bit.
Every time you encourage people to do something you think is good, and they end up not doing it, there will be negative consequences. Maybe they’ll lose self confidence, or feel like they’ve let people down, or even resent you for asking them to do it in the first place. But the solution isn’t to quit encouraging (or even pressuring) people to do things. It’s good for a kid to jump off the high dive, or try out for the school play, or give a talk in church, or apologize for wronging someone. It’s not always good to just wait for them to come up with the idea on their own. The key is partially in customizing the pressure appropriately for the person involved, but mostly in the reaction we have towards them when they don’t do it. They can’t be made to feel rejected, and they can’t be made to feel that any one choice is their “defining” moment.. They need their people to be just as accepting and encouraging regardless.
When it comes to missions, at least for young men, I think they should be strongly encouraged to go (assuming they have the prerequisites of physical and mental health and a basic testimony). Without that encouragement, I don’t think most would go, and that would be a tragedy. But if they don’t, they need to feel that their support structure hasn’t budged and that their future is still just as potentially awesome. I also think that those of us who might not be part of the inner support structure must assume the best about someone, i.e., that if they didn’t go, it was probably for the best for them.
I think I’m pretty typical in that I served a mission because I felt that’s what God expected of me. I wouldn’t have gone if it weren’t an expectation. The choice didn’t define me, but it really was one of the best things that ever happened to me in how it prepared me for marriage, kids, career, etc.. My son knows this and now he feels the pressure as he’s in his first year of college. But if he decides not to go, his dad will still be behind him as much as ever and just as interested in his awesome future, and I hope all those who know him will choose to believe that it’s for the best.
I wonder if a mission really does increase a woman’s “desirability” to male RMs. Twenty years ago when I returned from my mission, I found that the opposite was true – most guys who found out that I was an RM were suddenly less interested in me. I do hope that’s changing now that so many young women are serving.
I like the discussion but I think the bigger question is the current dilemma facing single young women in the church. It seems they are trapped in a nightmare with an old Beach Boys song playing endlessly: TWO GIRLS FOR EVERY BOY…..
Translated to the singles ward, that is more like 200 girls for every 100 boys. And when half of those boys marry it turns into 150 girls for every 50 boys and when 90 of the boys marry it becomes 110 girls for only 10 boys. The mileage in your ward may vary.
I don’t know why we keep so many more young women than young men active in the church. But my sense of smell says it might have something to do with the mission expectation. So the two topic are very closely related. It appears that something less than half the young men make that sacrifice and quite a bit more than half of the young women stay active.
The current situation is a moral outrage. We program women to only marry a very narrowly qualified set of men and then we only provide opportunities for maybe half of them to do it. And many of those who do marry have to “marry down” if they marry at all.
*****
Thread jack: Advice for desperate single LDS women.
1. By all means remain as available and attractive as possible to a righteous RM who will take you to the temple. But realize that at some point the odds of success fall from 50% to 30% to less than 10% depending on other variables. You then must take courage and consider other choices.
2. Those 200 girls (for very 100 boys) had about 200 brothers. Where did the other 100 of them go? Don’t be adverse to dating some of them. They might be better than you were taught they would be. (They might be worse, but same with the RMs)
3. We Mormons are only 2% of the US population and less in most other places. Once you step outside the boundaries of the LDS culture, the dating ratios all change. There are plenty of really decent guys not of our faith who would be delighted to date and marry a good decent Mormon girl. Not everyone who remains outside the LDS faithis on the high road to hell.
But you must realize that converting them is not very likely. This leads to an interdenominational family and the LDS church is a particularly toxic place for them. You will have to choose between church and family. Also about 80-90% of them are sexually active and you will probably have to make compromises there. But you can reasonably delay it until in a stable, committed, loving (engaged basically) relationship. It is not the end of the world.
4. My now married (option 3) daughter told me that if she arrived at the age of 30 and was not married she was going to go to the doctor and have artificial insemination and have children without a husband. About half of her LDS friends growing up experienced divorce of their parents and were raised by single parents or in mixed families. It is not that bad and if you really want to have a family this is the last option. There is no reason for a single woman to be forced to remain in that role. You can become a single mom and skip the corralling-a-happy-hubby part.
5. Embrace singlehood and make as great of a contribution to society as you can. But don’t be fooled, the LDS church is not going to genuinely appreciate your efforts. That will come only upon judgement day.
******
I realize the LDS church teaches against all but the first option, especially against #4. But this is the same church that set up the social situation that insures at least a 50% failure rate (not including the +/- 30% divorce rate) and remains too indecisive and unable to do anything about it. If you believe family is more important than church (which the LDS church claims to teach but seldom practices) then you are morally free to make one of these other choices.
When more LDS women began to take the singles problem into their own hands and start exercising some of these other choices, it might influence the young men in their decisions to serve a mission. More young women going on a mission might reshuffle the deck for them personally, but it doesn’t change the background music of two girls for every boy.
The LDS faith cannot survive if only half or less marry in the faith, and if only half or less of the children stay active, and if only half or less survive a faith crisis, and less than 10% of converts remain active long enough to establish families, and so forth. The long range survival of Mormonism as a faith depends upon the resolution of the singles problem and that solution will determine what kind of church we become. The history of full-time missionary service and various surges or demographic changes is a side show in comparison.
Nice post, Happy Hubby.
I wish we would focus on just being good, kind, quick-to-love, people and encourage our kids to consider such a thing a success; and I’m not talking about equating a mission and being good (though a mission could be *part* of being a good person). Sometimes I feel that the church is so focused on *not losing* kids that we fail to give them active reasons to stay. The focus is wrong: we create some number of obedient Mormons but should instead be focused on creating Christians.
Like Autumn, I served when women serving was not only the norm but often openly discouraged. I had a college roommate who had to “prove” to her bishop that she had no marriage prospects before he would sign her papers. I was technically engaged when I submitted my papers (that didn’t work out, though). It used to be that the women who served were doing it against the norms, but the boys going (and I do mean boys) were in the opposite situation: very pressured to go or be considered a social pariah. Now, with the age changes, it’s much more pressure for both to go.
And yet, the prevalence of issues like ADHD, anxiety, and depression among the current generation seems to be reducing the stigma of not completing a mission, at least from what I’m seeing. Kids today are more familiar with peers who take medication for these issues, and often these issues will either prevent or curtail mission service. I’ve been very pleased to see that those who don’t go or who come home early don’t suffer the same ostracizing that used to happen.
I also note that in my home ward in PA, most did not serve missions. Only 3 of the YM did, and I was the only YW who did. There wasn’t much pressure where we were. Much more at BYU.
My kids are approaching mission age. As they grew up, we always talked like, “When you go on a mission…” but now we are giving them space to decide for themselves. And I find myself hoping they don’t go. After the November policy, how can I continue to support the growth of the church? It is not the Christlike organization I thought it to be.
Brother Sky – as usual my response to your comment is, “I fully agree!” Same with Cody’s comments.
Brother Jones – glad to see the pressure isn’t so high that if you don’t go on a mission you might as well leave.
Martin – Good point on nudging those around us to aim high. I made sure I indicated that I still want my kids to go on a mission. I think the issue comes in when parents or others don’t allow a kid verging on young adult to make a decision that they don’t agree with. Sounds like you have done well with your son.
Interesting Autumn – Do you attribute it to the young men wanting a innocent submissive wife and marrying someone “equal” was frightening? To me that sounds to me like the definition of “wimp” and someone you probably don’t want to be with. I personally don’t understand that. I married an RM 30+ years ago and I really liked that she was an RM.
Mike – I do agree the HUGE issue is on the Men/Women ratios. The ramifications for many is a bigger issue than “are you an RM?” I was looking at that and how being an RM plays into that. I do think your options listed in your “advice” are well thought out. If I still had any daughters that were not married, I would mention your advice.
I have a number of friends and family who met their future spouse while serving their mission- meaning they were Elders and Sisters together. I think that with the age change this will be the new popular way to meet an Eternal Companion.
Happy Hubby – I had my suspicions. It certainly made me more cynical about dating. And yeah, I had no interest in marrying a guy like that.
Cody I agree with you 110 percent. “We fail to give them active reasons to stay.” I like that phrase a lot. We need to give our children more service options than just a proselytizing mission. There will be better retention rates if we give members better reasons to stay.
Moss: I too think that’s likely. My husband and I served in the same mission.