More BYU athletes to serve full two-year missions

...until the missions get "standardized" to 18 months

ABYUFAN wrote:

...until the missions get "standardized" to 18 months

I think we see Stake Conferences eliminated before we see 18-month missions for Elders.

snoscythe wrote:

I think we see Stake Conferences eliminated before we see 18-month missions for Elders.

As a sociol scientist I have been watching, with great interest, the many significant changes in the structure of the church. When the Prophet’s current wife first came to BYU as an associate professor I was about 1/2 way through my doctoral studies there. She had a pretty powerful influence in human equality.



I DO NOT question doctrine.



But I have to ask: Is there something inherently different between males and females that informs the issue of Elder/Sister disparity in length of mission service? I know growing up I heard a lot of possible explanations that may not be applicable in today’s church.



Standardized length of service may be closer than you think.



And sorry for threatening to have this thread moved out of the ‘football’ forum.

Ygridiron4ever wrote:
As a sociol scientist I have been watching, with great interest, the many significant changes in the structure of the church. When the Prophet’s current wife first came to BYU as an associate professor I was about 1/2 way through my doctoral studies there. She had a pretty powerful influence in human equality.

Nowadays, every time I hear that word "equality," to say nothing of when the word "human" is used in front of it, red flags go up. Because those that harp about so called equality the most are often the ones holding stances that are in direct conflict to the Church. (Not saying this applies to you).

I DO NOT question doctrine.

That's good.

But I have to ask: Is there something inherently different between males and females that informs the issue of Elder/Sister disparity in length of mission service? I know growing up I heard a lot of possible explanations that may not be applicable in today’s church.

I think the most obvious explanation is that females were never encouraged to go, while males were. It was the responsibility of the elders to do most of the missionary work. And I don't see how that wouldn't still apply in "today's Church."

Ygridiron4ever wrote:

Standardized length of service may be closer than you think.

I know a few people who expected it last October and who now are looking forward to April. The way we treat Elders Quorum Presidencies equally and Relief Society Presidencies with respect to calling and sustaining in Sacrament Meeting tells me that we will see either 2 year sister missions or 18 month elders teaching missions in the very near future.

I was one of the 18 month missionaries in the 80's ... learning a foreign language, we lost the most productive part of our mission by coming home at 18 months.



I would be surprised if they went back to 18 months for elders. The benefits weren't there ... we didn't get more missionaries willing to serve, and we lost productivity.



But, what do I know? If it changes, I'll support it.

Missionary service is such a private, personal matter that is dealt with publicly. The entire ward and extended family are aware of the decision. Whether vocalized or not, many can form an opinion of disappointment regarding the young man. I don’t know what the answer is, but the consequences of anything short of a fullly completed term of service can be devastating. I’m finally seeing articles in the Ensign dealing with some of these challenging situations.

This is great news for those that choose to serve, their families, the world, and the church.



It is not good for BYU football and basketball where most of our best athletes in those sports did not serve missions.

mtnradio wrote:

I was one of the 18 month missionaries in the 80's ... learning a foreign language, we lost the most productive part of our mission by coming home at 18 months.



I would be surprised if they went back to 18 months for elders. The benefits weren't there ... we didn't get more missionaries willing to serve, and we lost productivity.



But, what do I know? If it changes, I'll support it.

I agree with you Mtradio. I am grateful I didn't have to come home that early. My most productive time was the last few months.

I don't get the shorter time for women, and I don't get the whole "it's the responsibility of the men" to preach the gospel. It's all our responsibility. Every baptised member shares that responsibility equally.



If any change is made, I hope the extend the sisters' time. They get robbed of those last awesome 6 months. All three of my sisters served. Two went foreign. All wish they had 6 more months.

Gunk wrote:

I don't get the shorter time for women, and I don't get the whole "it's the responsibility of the men" to preach the gospel. It's all our responsibility. Every baptised member shares that responsibility equally.



If any change is made, I hope the extend the sisters' time. They get robbed of those last awesome 6 months. All three of my sisters served. Two went foreign. All wish they had 6 more months.

It's everyone's responsibility but it's not necessarily done the same in every way.



I've always looked at it much like why males are required to sign up for selective service and females aren't.

KingCoug wrote:

I've always looked at it much like why males are required to sign up for selective service and females aren't.

That may soon change as well. It almost happened before. “In early 1945, Congress was poised to do something previously unthinkable: draft women” (CONNOR, Joseph. “Drafting Women.” • 8/6/2016 • WORLD WAR II MAGAZINE) I’m sure that the threshold to do so today is much lower than it would have been in 1942.

Ygridiron4ever wrote:

I've always looked at it much like why males are required to sign up for selective service and females aren't.

That may soon change as well. It almost happened before. “In early 1945, Congress was poised to do something previously unthinkable: draft women” (CONNOR, Joseph. “Drafting Women.” • 8/6/2016 • WORLD WAR II MAGAZINE) I’m sure that the threshold to do so today is much lower than it would have been in 1942.

Don't even get me started on that crap.



It's nothing more than part of the agenda to minimize, if not try to erase, the natural differences between men and

women.



I have two daughters and I don't want either having to sign up for selective service because a bunch of scumbag liberals and feminists think it somehow helps equality.

Funny, different cultures.



All Israelites fight. Both women and men are obligated to join the military. Both women and men view it as their duty to serve and protect their country. Both are honored to do it. Both serve in combat roles. There is no "fighting is for men" culture or mentality, yet it's a fairly conservative country from a morals standpoint. It's a much more religious country than the US.



Here in the US, female participation in the military is viewed as a liberal agenda. There, it's patriotism and the women would object to being excluded from the opportunity to fight for their country.



I worked for an Israeli company for 3 years. I was extremely impressed by their women. Hard nosed, working, grounded in principles, and didn't crap from anyone. They relied on their skills and intellect, not their feminity. We could use more women like that.



People don't want to send their daughters to war, but they are okay with sending their sons? Sends and odd message to the sons.

Gunk wrote:

Funny, different cultures.



All Israelites fight. Both women and men are obligated to join the military. Both women and men view it as their duty to serve and protect their country. Both are honored to do it. Both serve in combat roles. There is no "fighting is for men" culture or mentality, yet it's a fairly conservative country from a morals standpoint. It's a much more religious country than the US.



Here in the US, female participation in the military is viewed as a liberal agenda. There, it's patriotism and the women would object to being excluded from the opportunity to fight for their country.



I worked for an Israeli company for 3 years. I was extremely impressed by their women. Hard nosed, working, grounded in principles, and didn't crap from anyone. They relied on their skills and intellect, not their feminity. We could use more women like that.



People don't want to send their daughters to war, but they are okay with sending their sons? Sends and odd message to the sons.

Different scenarios entirely. Israel is a small country surrounded by enemies on all sides who are continually looking to destroy it. America, fortunately, is not in that same position. At least not yet anyway. And those pushing for more women in the military here in the US, including in combat roles, couldn't care less about patriotism. It's all about their warped view of what constitutes equality, i.e men and women can only be equal if they're the same in every way. And that includes people being able to "change" their gender.



And it's not that anyone wants to send their sons to war. But there are a lot of differences between men and women and that's why the job of fighting for and protecting the country falls to the men. For much the same reason "protect" is part of the husband/father's role in the family. I shouldn't have to explain this to you.