Teen girls chat in a chapel hallway as one holds a mission call, reflecting rising anticipation around the LDS sister missionary age change.

From Eat Pray Love to Preach, Pray, Learn

How does lowering mission age shape young women? It roots emerging adults in faith, service, and pro-family purpose.

Download Print-Friendly Version

On Friday, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints announced that young women would now be eligible for missionary service beginning at 18, rather than 19. This change will bless individual young women and strengthen families and congregations.

The Church Newsroom statement reiterated that, “While the Lord asks every worthy, able young man as part of his priesthood responsibility to prepare for and serve a mission … missionary service remains an optional opportunity for young women.” Sister Amy Wright, first counselor in the Primary General Presidency and a member of the Missionary Executive Council, further stated that after consulting with many young women throughout the world, the council decided to keep the length of missions for young women at 18 months, after “(reaching) out throughout the entire world to young women, inviting them to be a thoughtful part of this revelatory process.” The council found that the “overwhelming” preference was to keep the term of service as it currently stands. 

On a weekend in early August 2012, I took a spontaneous drive to Salt Lake City to see some friends. At the time, I was 22 years old, living with my parents, working a retail job, and attending what was then Dixie State College (now Utah Tech University) part-time. I had previously paused my university studies and was “taking some time” to “travel,” and “find myself.” It was, after all, the decade of Eat, Pray Love. But the truth was, I was listless, lonely, without direction or a deep sense of spirituality or purpose.

On Sunday morning, before my drive back to St. George, I had a passing thought to stop by the Salt Lake City Temple. I hadn’t been very active in the Church in many years—I had mostly attended friends’ mission farewells and homecomings. I believed that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was probably mostly true, except for the teachings on coffee, priesthood ordination, and marriage. I assumed that eventually, I would return to church activity, perhaps when I was older or when the changes I desired in the Church came, which I was sure was just around the corner. 

As I sat quietly on the temple grounds, I thought it might be appropriate to pray. I don’t remember what I said in my prayer, but as I opened my eyes, I looked toward the smiling sister missionaries greeting visitors and thought I should serve a mission.

It was preposterous. And yet that thought didn’t go away. It grew louder and louder in my mind as I drove home. I couldn’t put it out. After hours of this very clear and direct impression, I called my mother while driving and told her I needed to prepare to serve a mission. And I did. 

I needed to prepare to serve a mission.

I returned home from my mission in Toronto, Canada, two years later, a completely different person. Yes, I had many more bumps and bruises ahead of me in my spiritual and temporal growth, but within a year I had returned to university studies and become a 4.0 student, had met and married my now-husband in the temple, had developed some goals in my life, was active in my ward, and within two years my husband and I welcomed our first child.  

This past Friday evening, I volunteered backstage for that same daughter’s (now 9) ballet recital. I was overjoyed to hear the oldest girls chatting about how they would now be eligible for missionary service. These precious daughters of God are already so far ahead of where I was at their age, with accomplishments and goals and a devotion to the Savior. 

In 1979, President Spencer W. Kimball prophesied, “Much of the major growth that is coming to the Church in the last days will come because many of the good women of the world … will be drawn to the Church in large numbers. This will happen to the degree that the women of the Church reflect righteousness and articulateness in their lives and to the degree that the women of the Church are seen as distinct and different—in happy ways—from the women of the world.”

President Russell M. Nelson echoed his words many years later, saying, “My dear sisters, you who are our vital associates during this winding-up scene, the day that President Kimball foresaw is today. You are the women he foresaw! Your virtue, light, love, knowledge, courage, character, faith, and righteous lives will draw good women of the world, along with their families, to the Church in unprecedented numbers!”

These were the young women I served with on my mission, the young women I see in my ward, the young women from the dance recital, my nieces, and my children’s wonderful nanny. Young women and men coming out of our youth programs are extraordinary. Emergent adulthood, the stage from about age 18 to 25 years old, is so crucial for identity formation. As young adults become immersed in the gospel during the beginning of these years, they will be better equipped to engage with the prevailing university party culture and worldly philosophies they may later be exposed to. I wasted years of my young adulthood trying to find myself, but I was only successful when I forgot myself, as is the case with so many. 

Those outcomes don’t just bless the sisters.

Sister missionaries return home with leadership and public speaking skills, and a deeper knowledge of the gospel. They also return having lived independently,  budgeted wisely, and cooked, cleaned, and served those in need often. Many have learned foreign languages.  Research shows their GPAs are higher, and they take more university credits when they return.  

Those outcomes don’t just bless the sisters themselves; they ripple out into the families and wards they eventually help build. A woman who has spent a year and a half testifying of Christ, studying scripture daily, and learning to work shoulder to shoulder with a partner is better prepared to teach the gospel in her own home, to counsel with a spouse, and to nurture children in a bewildering cultural moment. Even for those who never marry or have children, that spiritual maturity and practical experience fortify Relief Societies, Young Women classes, Primary presidencies, and every corner of the church family.

Lowering the missionary age for young women is, in that sense, a profoundly pro-family policy. It opens a window for more daughters of God to be deeply rooted in the gospel during the very years when so many peers are drifting, and it does so without pressuring every young woman into one path or timeline. By keeping missionary service optional and the length of service at 18 months, the senior leadership of the Church of Jesus Christ has made more room for young women to seek revelation about education, work, and family in a way that fits their circumstances and callings.

The road to adulthood is never easy, and it provides many opportunities for young men and women to lose their way. What a blessing the missionary program is for not only those who are taught by missionaries, but also those who are blessed to serve.  My hope is that with this policy change, many more young women will choose to serve, to lose themselves for a season in the work of the Lord, and in doing so find a surer sense of who they are. 

 

About the author

Amanda Freebairn

Amanda Freebairn is an associate editor at Public Square Magazine. She is a proud wife, mother, writer and teacher, and holds an M.Ed. from Arizona State University.
On Key

You Might Also Like

Barry Keoghan shines in weak star vehicle

“Bring Them Down” is a careful small-town drama about Irish sheep farmers. The film stars Christopher Abbott as Michael after his acclaimed performance as the villain in “Poor Things,” and titular role in “Wolf Man.”  Barry Keoghan plays opposite as Jack, the son of neighboring farmers. Keoghan also made his mark in a Yorgos Lanthimos film, “Killing of a Sacred Deer.” He is as up-and-coming as an actor can be, set to star in the highly anticipated Beatles biopic.  The film is mostly a showpiece for the two talented leads to luxuriate in the acting moments that the revenge plot affords them. Abbott builds a character suspended in tension between his guilt over his mother’s passing, his deference to his strong-willed father, his honor, and his self-sufficiency. Keoghan has a slightly more complicated job, as he needs to find the motivation to start the feud inside a character that is juvenile and slight. As a showcase, the film is a success. Not many people will see it, but it will certainly help burnish the reputations of Abbot and Keoghan as formidable actors. And the plot is good enough to serve that purpose. Caroline, Michael’s ex-girlfriend, and Jack’s mother, has decided to leave Jack’s father because of their financial problem. A bridge is out, and Michael’s father is reluctant to let Jack’s family cross his property. So Jack hatches a plan to steal two prized rams from Michael’s family. When Jack’s dad catches him, he makes him kill the ram and get rid of it. The woman they sell it to offers them good money for sheep legs, offering what Jack sees as a solution to his family’s problems. But rather than tell the story in a forthright way, the edit tells the story twice, first from Michael’s point of view, and then from Jack’s. So during the first half of the film things move so fast and with so little context, you struggle to know what’s going on. Then when it restarts, the audience doesn’t know the device yet, and doesn’t figure it out for about twenty minutes when plot points begin to repeat themselves.  Once we figure it out, the idea isn’t terrible. When we were strictly in Michael’s perspective the feud seems meaningless and is cast in strictly moralistic terms. When we revisit it through Jack’s perspective, we can begin to appreciate the complicated factors that led to Jack’s decision.  But the edit doesn’t tell the story clearly enough. So the main emotion I felt while watching the film was confusion. I’m certain that the film would improve on a rewatch, but the ultimate story that a feud develops because Jack steals Michael’s sheep to keep his parents together doesn’t have enough heft to draw me back. It’s a pastoral film, and it does a good job of capturing the place. Colm Meaney, who plays Michael’s father, Ray, does a particularly notable job speaking Irish at length. First-time director Chris Andrews has some interesting ideas. He is clearly capable of letting talented actors do what they do best, a skill that will serve him well in his directing career. The film is also shot in a subdued way that highlights the natural light and natural beauty of the setting, but without ever drawing attention to itself.  The use of fire in the film’s back half is particularly notable.  “Bring Them Down” is R-rated for its violence and language. The domestic violence where Jack’s mother beats Jack’s father is particularly harrowing. But I found the film’s moral message to be largely in the right place. Jack’s theft leads to nothing but suffering. And revenge is shown as almost entirely futile. The film even offers a glimpse at honest redemption. Still, I wouldn’t watch this with my kids, at least until they were adults.  Two and a half out of five stars. “Bring Them Down” releases in theaters nationwide February 7, 2025.

What Does It Mean to Be “Effective”?

With public health messaging now emphasizing how remarkably effective COVID-19 vaccines are, it’s reasonable to ask what exactly that means? Based on the published studies of the leading three vaccine candidates, I dove in to better understand that for myself.

Subscribe To Our Weekly Newsletter

Stay up to date on the intersection of faith in the public square.

You have Successfully Subscribed!

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This