While reading “Our History”1 I noticed Sister Missionaries were not called to service until 1898. I started to wonder what were some of the main reasons President George Q. Cannon called Sisters into the Missionary Field? As you know men like things the same and women like things to change every once-in-awhile. So whatever the reason for instituting the Mission opening up to female members of the Church, it has changed over the years.
In my humble opinion in the church today, Sisters in the Mission Field are Neo-Mormon Rebels, Feminists in the Church for lack of a better word.
It is not required for women to serve a mission. If you are a woman and you are of Missionary age, not married, not career oriented, then what else is there to do in the church to distract attention from yourself . . . . serve a mission?
So tell me what you think! Do you think Sister Missionaries are Feminists in Temple Clothing or Faithful Mormon Women looking for a distraction away from their not being married yet? Or is there a Third Way?
P.S. I seek on to offend. Only inquire thoughtful inquiries.
Jamie Trwth
- Our History: A Brief History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Published 1996 [↩]
“seek on to offend”
Too bad. I’ve known a number of sister missionaries and I don’t think that either choice really captures most of them. They were excellent missionaries though.
Stephen M (Ethesis)
September 16th, 2007
Even though they weren’t called as ministers until 1898, often women would accompany their husbands on missions (as early as the 1830’s). These women would teach the gospel, manage the Relief Society, administer to the sick and sometimes teach school.
J. Stapley
September 24th, 2007
As a returned missionary I tried hard not to take offense to this posting. Many sisters go on a mission not because they don’t have anything else to do or that they are not able to find someone to get married, rather they go because they are called of the Lord to serve a mission. On my mission, I knew some incredible Elders and some not so good ones. The same goes for Elders.
Michaella
October 25th, 2007
My wife and I were engaged and then she went on a mission. She felt inspired to go and really wanted to have the opportunity to serve the Lord. I’m not sure what you mean by feminists in Temple Clothing…
Matt W.
October 31st, 2007
It is not required of MOST sisters in the church to serve a mission… however, it is required of SOME. My patriarchal blessing specifically tells me that I should prepare for and serve a mission, and that is precisely what I am working towards.
Even with the Mission Call listed in my Patriarchal Blessing, I thought that it wasn’t really necessary for me to serve and I decided not to bother. However, it always felt like something was wrong, that something was missing from my life. I finally realized that it was the Mission I was missing; it is my purpose in life, the work that the Lord has called me to do.
I don’t consider myself to be a feminist; I am simply doing what my Father in Heaven has asked me to do, and am going where He has asked me to go. I’m sure that most of the Sister Missionaries out there are doing the same; just doing what the Lord has asked them to do.
Celia T.
November 28th, 2007
I have always defined a feminist as an empowered woman, in which case I agree that many Sister missionaries are just that, and more power to them for it. However, you suggest that a feminist is defined as the opposite of being a faithful LDS woman. I think that the problem in this instance is framing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_(social_sciences)). In the past it has been the general implication of leaders of the church (who are men, or submissive to men) that feminists were radical, that they sought to undermine their authority, and that they didn’t live according to the gospel. However, as the world becomes more progressive, so does the church over time. It would be false to suggest that women have been equal to men in the past, or even today. The world is gradually becoming more egalitarian, and gender roles are becoming mixed and blurred (for example, my mother commented that she was proud of me for changing diapers and tending my son… because my father never did any such thing, which was normal for their time). Consequently, the sexes don’t feel that they have to “find their place” as much as they would have 40 years ago because there is so much cross-over, old boundaries have become outdated, obsolete, and are eroding with each new generation. Personally, I think it is an improvement, and a wonderful thing, but we also have to control it so that men and women don’t feel overloaded with both old and new expectations. With this progression, what was a feminist in the eyes of church leaders 40 years ago is becoming the norm of today. It may be necessary to revamp our definition of a feminist, and be sure to distinguish the empowered from the radical.
Jay L
January 30th, 2008
I know this is a year late, but I was compelled to reply nonetheless.
“Do you think Sister Missionaries are Feminists in Temple Clothing or Faithful Mormon Women looking for a distraction away from their not being married yet?”
I am not sure what you mean by feminists in temple clothing. You oppose feminists with faithful LDS women, so I assume you think feminism is a bad thing. If you think feminism is a rebellion against the divine role the Lord gave to sisters, then I have to agree. However, I think of feminism as female empowerment–embracing the divine equality of men and women as well as the sacred role of motherhood.
Anyways, you seem to think that women serve missions either because they are Neo-Nazi feminists rebelling against their LDS expectations or simply looking to “distract” themselves from their singlehood. What an unfortunate view of the sacred work of missionaries! I can only imagine that you have met very few sister missionaries. All the sisters I have known felt inspired to serve missions because the Lord called them to the work, they desired to serve the Lord, and they loved the gospel so much they wanted to spread the good word!
At least that is why I am preparing to serve my mission. It is neither a distraction nor a feminist rebellion. Simply, I love this gospel and I have prayed and know the Lord wants me to serve.
Sydney
October 7th, 2008
The official word in the church is that sisters are not REQUIRED to serve, but may feel the call to serve. If a “viable” offer of marriage is not forthcoming they may go..
I have been YSA adviser in our stake for over 2 years. All the sisters who have left on missions have been full of the spirit of the work…not one has felt they had “nothing better to do”…
We cannot put a worldly slant on a heavenly errand. It will never make sense.
cindy downing
September 22nd, 2009
It is a BIG pet peeve of mine when girls answer the question, “Did you serve a mission?” with “No, I got married.” Guess what? I served a mission AND got married.
To me, it is great that we as sisters get to choose whether to serve or not. I always recommend serving, it is adding an extra chapter to your life without taking away any others.
And if you DO decide to serve and are having a difficult time finding cute clothes, check out my online store: http://www.sistermissionaryclothes.com
Candace
March 20th, 2010