Ok so I don't mean to beat this dead horse but I could not help but notice that dropping the age a year might create more issues with getting married young, not going to college and using church welfare.

My nephew is a prime example of getting married to young. He got off his mission and married within 6 weeks. Because his family told him to and that what all his friends were doing. The problem now is that he is on food stamps and church welfare. The bishop pays his rent and they just had a kid. The only thing I can say for him is that he is trying to go to college.

I have to wonder will this drop in age also predicate a drop in the marriage age and a drop in college enrollment for TBM's?


Anubis

The Church see's that as a benefit.
Early marriages equal early children equals membership and tithing growth.

The Church never makes a decision about the members that isn't beneficial to swelling the coffers.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/09/2012 09:54AM by Stumbling.

I'm not sure, it could also mean a huge increase in women serving missions before marriage. This will largely be a good thing, as it will give a lot of girls a chance to see part of the world outside of Utah, before marriage. It will also give them a good view of the actual character of the "elders" and may make them question the importance of marrying an RM.

No, it will still only be the girls who want to serve a mission that will go. Given the choice, most will stay and do college and look for a RM mate.

not serve missions.

I see your point but it seems more likely that they would suffer in tithing since the majority would be on welfare. I guess they would have to pay tithing to get the lards blessings without so it would be a zero net.

If they collect welfare, it will be government welfare and most will pay tithing on it.

my wife told to me last night that had this announcement happened at the October 1989 conference she'd have asked me to wait for her to get back so she could serve a mission.

The church never does anything without a reason and yes it always ends up with whatever gives the church the most profit. I served a mission and my dad was a mission president. He says it will increase the amount of issues he has with Elders and Sisters hooking up while on their missions. It was a big problem for him. I know most of the girls I went with were looking for a husband. I left early because I couldn't deal with it, too much emphasis on numbers. I think it's to continue populating the church and to prevent these kids from free thinking. If they go off to college, there is a chance they will be influenced by the real world.

I felt like I was being shanghaied into everything, but at least I had time to be single for awhile and figure things out. I bet the next thing they'll do is apply enormous pressure on recently returned missionaries to get hitched and start popping out babies, even more than they already are.

So, you'll go directly from high school to mission to marriage and kids without even a breather. What a nightmare.

I think that for many young women, it opens up doors that weren't there previously. For a lot of them, waiting until 21 became problematic, mostly because they were 3/4 the way through an education, if they went to college, and just reaching the "old maid" stage (what a ridiculous notion!) if they hadn't gone to school.

With an increase in sister missionaries, and the likelihood that same-aged boys and girls will be returning around the same time (20 y.o. boys and 20.5 y.o. girls), there will be an increase in the number of married couples where both will be RMs--a scary thought, indeed.

It would be interesting to know if the general apostasy rates are higher in one gender than the other, and, if so, if that is a factor in trying to get more girls on missions?

I remember when I was out (97-99), Hinckley mentioned in Conference for girls to remember that it was OPTIONAL, and there was a significant decrease in the number of young women who served.

It's a pretty big puzzler....