We just had stake conference here, and there were dozens (seriously, dozens) of mentions of the importance of getting 19– to 25–year-old men to serve as full-time missionaries, but only two phrases given in passing that even acknowledged that 21+–year-old women can serve as full-time missionaries.*
Well, as a father of daughters and no sons, i started to get annoyed at having to sit through being told multiple times that i was remiss in my spiritual duties if i didn’t “prepare [my] sons to serve a full-time mission”—so i have this to say:
No, i’m not preparing any sons to serve as full-time missionaries—but i am preparing my daughters to, and i’m preparing them to be better teachers on their full-time missions than your sons will ever be.
* And this is through priesthood leadership meeting, the adult session,** and the general session.
** That reminds me of something. I’ll post it next time.
Faith Hill: Where Are You, Christmas?
12 years ago
1 comment:
Not really on your point, but it reminded me of something I found totally weird.
My former visiting teaching companion in my old ward once said she felt people who were given several boys were the more spiritual people in the church. She said that she knew I must be a wonderful person because I have 3 boys. She wasn't so much because she only had one boy.
Um, yeah. I seriously had no response. Totally speechless. It was the strangest conversation I've ever had with another Mormon. I mean, I'd had almost the EXACT SAME conversation a few days before with my next door neighbor, but she was Muslim so culturally her point made a lot more sense.
FTR, I do not believe AT ALL that Mormons with lots of boys are any better than those who have lots of girls... or no kids at all.
Post a Comment