Concerning the obligation to serve for men, I don’t think that there is an obligation. Yes, it is a priesthood responsibility to preach the gospel, but that gospel can be preached in your local area, too. Serving a two-year mission is a calling like any other calling in the church. You can accept it or reject it, without jeopardizing your eternal salvation.

Those who feel called by the Lord to serve a mission should go. Those who do not feel such a call, should not go. (No, not every calling in this church is inspired.) So many missionaries on my mission were there for the wrong reasons: pressure, getting a car afterwards, right of passage, etc. You wanna know what kind of missionaries they made? Lousy. Those who felt called of God and were there because of their great desires to spread the good word of what Jesus had done in their lives made great missionaries.

D&C 4 is clear that only those who have desires to serve should be called to serve. No one should be pressured to serve, men or women:

The Lord said, “Therefore, if ye have desires to serve God ye are called to the work;” (D&C 4: 3)

In the home a young girl can understand that her primary role is to be a wife and mother. Yet as that preparation unfolds there may be an opportunity to serve a full-time mission, provided recent counsel of the First Presidency is followed: “Worthy single women ages twenty-one and older . . . may be recommended to serve full-time missions. . . . These sisters can make a valuable contribution . . . , but they should not be pressured to serve. Bishops should not recommend them for missionary service if it will interfere with imminent marriage prospects.”

For example, from childhood through maturing years, our daughter Mary Lee heard her parents speak of our treasured missionary experiences. We had explained how challenging missionary opportunities had enriched our lives and laid the foundation for all that we treasure in life. Yet we taught that it was her decision whether she would serve or not. Through her growing years, it was clear that she intended to be a missionary. However, as missionary age approached, her exciting experiences in the university began to present attractive alternatives. Once when she mentioned wrestling with that uncertainty, she was counseled to talk to her bishop. An appointment was arranged. As she sat down before a choice bishop, she asked, “What do you think of my serving a full-time mission?” The bishop jumped from his chair, clapped his hands on the desk, and said, “That is the greatest thing I could imagine for you.” That comment tipped the scales.

Mary Lee served a most effective mission in Spain that unveiled hidden capacities, matured her spiritual development, and caused to flower capabilities that have blessed her as a wife and mother. The bishop that had such a profound influence in my daughter’s life is J. Willard Marriott Jr., currently an Area Seventy. But we remember him most for what he did for our daughter Mary Lee. Now in her own family with the strong examples of a returned missionary father and mother, a son and a daughter have fulfilled exemplary missions.

Can you see why I suggest that some of you young women, where there is a desire and it will not affect an impending marriage, seriously consider serving the Lord as a missionary? Our home has been greatly blessed by a wife and mother who chose to serve a full-time mission during my period of service.

I think Elder Scott here is clearly *not* discouraging women from serving as missionaries, but is instead *encouraging* them to consider a mission as an option in the right circumstances. Consider also the five ahkam categories of Islam:

1. Wajib (obligatory, e.g. the pilgrimage to Mecca )
2. Mustahabb (recommended, e.g. memorization of the Qur’an)
3. Mubah (neutral)
4. Makruh (discouraged, e.g. gossip)
5. Haraam (prohibited, e.g. drinking alcohol)

As I see the lay of the land (a) missions for young men are wajib (possibly trending toward mustahabb), (b) missions for senior couples have recently progressed from mubah to mustahabb, and (c) missions for young women are solidly mubah.

I read President Hinckley’s use of the word “essential” as synonymous with “obligatory.” At the time of his talk, it seemed that missions for young women were drifting from mubah to mustahabb in Mormon culture, and he wanted to stop that drift. But I agree with Tom (and a billion Muslims) that there is a world of difference between mubah and makruh. To claim that this is merely “hairsplitting” (a la Mark IV #72) is unjustified.

Thanks, LeeAnn, for explaining how helpful President Hinckley’s words were to you. I’m sure your right that your type of situation was exactly what he was hoping to address.

Candace,

Can you understand why the brethren would prefer we proceed with THIS very sacred lifetime mission over serving as the elders do on 2-year missions?

Why does it have to be one or the other, particularly when a mission is so brief compared to the rest of your life, and when so many women clearly want to go? Particularly if women served from 19 to 21 like men, it’s unlikely their marriage and childbearing would be delayed noticeably.

But the role of women in the church is truly an astounding one. As we study more and more, reaching for the mysteries of heaven as we have been commanded to do, the role of women becomes much more clear.

We teach the gospel every day in what we do, what we say and how we act. Do you spend a portion of every day studying the gospel? Do you have answers to gospel questions when asked? If not, that is a part of the mission of every Latter-day Saint. Know what you profess to believe.

We are partners in creation with God. We, not the brethren, are privileged to carry within our bodies precious children, thereby becoming co-creators with God. Do you understand the awesome privilege accorded women? This is something that was not given to me. I treasure it more than most because it was denied me. Is this precious blessing so much less important than the priesthood or elders and sisters serving missions?

We hold, in the palm of our hands, the very future of the church in the way we behave, nurture and love those placed in our care. Can you understand why the brethren would prefer we proceed with THIS very sacred lifetime mission over serving as the elders do on 2-year missions?

Now, again. I completely support sisters going on missions. But please understand the true meaning behind the words of the brethren.

I clung to statements like the one above by Pres. Hinckley. I was thankful that I dated a fair amount so at least I avoided some of the you-should-go looks. I sincerely believe he is aware of the social pressure on young women and wants to make it clear that it is okay for young women to remain home if they do not have a clear feeling within themselves that it is the right thing for them to do.

As for the difference in ages, I believe there is significant wisdom in that. My comment is long enough though, and that would create a thesis!

First, I have to say that when I was waiting for my call, someone anonymously tacked the talk by President Hinckley to my apartment door in the middle of the night, highlighting the very sentence that has been debated several times throughout this thread. And, yes, when I woke up in the morning and found that on my door, I cried and felt betrayed and discouraged from doing what I knew I had been asked to do. But revisiting it now, I see President Hinckley’s wisdom: as always he leaves enough room for us to take his message and get our own answer to the question. With a little more maturity, I read the sentence as an affirmation that a woman who hasn’t gone on a mission is worth just as much as a woman who has.

Second, I was not the type who thought from primary that I would serve a mission. I didn’t ever want to go: I don’t have a flamboyant personality and I knew it would be really tough for me to tract and street contact and wear a badge. But I felt very strongly that I needed to go. Strangely enough, I was encouraged to consider a mission by a bishop (not exactly my bishop, but that’s another story). It took me nearly a year before I finally got up the courage to talk to my bishop about getting my papers. While my bishop was very kind and encouraging and supportive, I remember sitting on the sidewalk outside my stake center sobbing after my interview with my BYU stake president. He made the hour long interview quite discouraging. He asked me several times if I was sure I didn’t have any marriage prospects. He made me sincerely doubt an answer I had already received for myself repeatedly.

Third, it’s taken quite a few years, but I think I might understand a little bit where that stake president was coming from. A mission is not easy. And while a well-prepared, mature, confident, spiritually in-tune sister missionary is often the most effective missionary in the mission, an immature, unsure, and emotionally unstable sister missionary is perhaps the least effective missionary in the mission. Over the course of my mission I served with twelve different native Russian companions. While some were the most powerful and determined and amazing women I have ever met, others of them weren’t. For those less determined, their motivations fell along one or more of the following lines: 1.) to escape from parents and strict rules to a higher standard of living (in every case the church missionary fund was paying for these women to serve) 2.) to find an American man to marry 3.) to go on an extended vacation. The reality of missionary work was a difficult and sometimes impossible thing for most of my companions to grasp. How much grief I and the mission and the members and the mission president would have been spared if they had stayed home and pursued their education. Much of their lack of preparation stemmed from the fact that many of them had only been members of the church for a little over a year. It seemed like, in Russia at least, a number of sisters went on missions as soon as they had been a member a year in order to find someone to marry.

Fourth, while a mission was essential to my life program, I don’t think it is for every woman. (And I’ll leave the discussion of whether it is essential for every man for another day.) I’m surprised that no one has brought this up yet, but now that I am a mother, I realize that motherhood is very similar to missionary work in significant ways. You are responsible for the conversion/teaching of someone you love wholly beyond yourself: your child. You completely give of yourself physically, emotionally, and spiritually to another person. You give up your time and your interests to take care of someone else. All significant aspects of missionary work. And while a woman is asked to give her whole life to her family nearly indefinitely, a man is asked to give this type of sacrifice (i.e. completely turning his life over to someone else) for only two years.

Looking back, serving a mission was the most difficult thing I have ever done, for a number of reasons. But I survived, got married, finished graduate school, had a child, and continue to look to those 18 months of unbelievable strength to help me through the rough times now. Who would I be if I hadn’t served? Not the person I am today. But would Heavenly Father have found some other way to smooth off my rough edges if I had decided not to serve? I think so. In the end, the mission question has the same answer as many questions in the church—the First Presidency has to give general counsel, but it is up to the individual to use that counsel to find a personal answer.

And I agree, Myka, that’s a frustrating situation. It’s hard as an employee to feel like your employer is trying to nickel and dime you to death. It’s particularly bad when the Church is that employer. No wonder they’ve had a hard time filling the position.

They were overworked, greatly underpaid, and in most instances, denied any benefits. (This was a problem of academia, not LDS church policy in any way I can think of.)

This is also a problem in LDS church policy, at least looking at CES. At my university, we got a new Institute director. (By the way, can institute directors be women? I sincerely hope so. Has anyone had one?) He is looking for a new secretary, maybe looking to tap into some of the male graduate students’ wives. CES gives these secretaries a relatively low hourly wage ($13 in Southern California), and it is a part time position. “Part-time,” meaning 30-35 hours a week, just under the allowance for benefits!
As you might imagine, they are having a terrible time trying to find someone to fill the position that meets all the requirements including having a current temple recommend.
It just appalls me that the Church won’t allow these women to work full time with benefits.
Alright, end threadjack. This discussion has been very interesting and provoking.

Before the years Naismith mentioned (late Seventies), a prevalent attitude was: Don’t go to work just to get a fancy car, an upscale house, or other material things. Live simply and supply the stay-at-home support for husband and children. But as we all know, before long, the two-job family was no longer a matter of affording the extras; it was a matter paying for the basics. In the days after President Benson gave the famous talk about wives staying at home, those who objected most vocally to that counsel were–the husbands. (At least that was the prevalent version of things in Utah Valley.) The bottom line really became the bottom line.

Look at the general situation today: many call the current generation GUSHERS–”Grown Up, Still Home.” As one who neither married nor had children, I speak only as an observer, but what I have observed about my faculty colleagues is that many, many of them have had to help support grown children, had to help with down payments on homes, had to finance day care or camp for grandchildren, and often had to open their homes to grown children who had divorced and needed help their raising small children. One pal of mine, while trying to save for his own retirement, felt it his duty to pay for extended therapy for a little grandson who had suffered in the tsunami of a tragic divorce.

So there was a double pressure: the desire to follow counsel and keep Mother in the home, versus the indisputable economics of the time. As this fact of life became obvious, church members and leaders alike saw advanced education as just what Naismith said–a way for a woman to work, perhaps part-time, perhaps from the home, and bring necessary income to the family.

I remember that many years ago, several of us on the faculty talked about the possibilties of offering courses for credit on this new gizmo, the computer. Women who had dropped out to marry and raise children could perhaps complete degrees even though they lived miles or whole states away. But at that time (maybe early Seventies), most administrators were very doubtful about encouraging wives and mothers to do anything like that: it would pull their focus away from their primary responsibilties. Now, of course,the offerings and the opportunities that BYU and most other universities offer online are breath-taking.

One last anecdote. The brilliant daughter of a colleague was interested in, let’s say, German. She went to the BYU counseling service to ask about preparing for a career based on her interest in that language. There she was told: “Well, be sure to take lots of typing and shorthand, and perhaps you could become a secretary in the German Department!”

Her father, hearing about this counsel, had some advice of his own for the counselor in question.
And not too many years later, his gifted daughter became head of the Department of German in a large, prestigious Eastern university.

This response has become too long–sorry. (We’re looking back on a lot of years here!) And we have yet to discuss a separate but related matter: the problem of wives &mothers who took part-time jobs all over the country to supplement family income.
They were overworked, greatly underpaid, and in most instances, denied any benefits. (This was a problem of academia, not LDS church policy in any way I can think of.) The universities thought of themselves as doing a favor for these part-timers, who needed the work. It became a national scandal, and finally some justice, some fairness was secured, though hardly enough. And bear in mind that these part-timers (some of whom taught for decades in their departments and made invaluable contributions) could be let go at any time.

Enough from me!