Comments on: Girls and Missionaries: The View from 1964

By: ji

ji — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 15:45:23 +0000

There is good teaching in the original posting, and the underlying principle applies both ways — boys and young men should similarly respect sister missionaries — but the author was writing to girls, not to boys.

A forehead slap is an entirely reasonable response for “to practically absolve a missionary who is ‘only human’ if he wavers in his commitment, and offer ‘condemnation’ to a girl who is ‘the reason’ for a missionary’s failure”. Or a charitable “God bless them”.

By: Ardis E. Parshall

Ardis E. Parshall — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 17:51:15 +0000

Mark, did you and your comp make dates with them (there were three girls, not just two, so it was okay, right?) to stroll along the quai and watch the fireworks on Bastille Day (or whatever the Japanese equivalent was)? I think not.

By: Diana

Diana — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 17:46:42 +0000

Almost as great as theirs…..ugh.

By: Mark B.

Mark B. — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 16:34:08 +0000

Just in case you don’t remember that election campaign, Ardis: I didn’t make that up. It was on campaign signs, buttons, bumper stickers, etc. In fact, the entire state of Arizona was lit up so it looked like that from space. Or something.

The only family I met in Japan that invited missionaries over regularly had three lovely girls, in their late teens and very early 20s. Was Sister S____ hoping to land American husbands for the daughters? Now, nearly four decades later, I just don’t know. But we were happy to visit with them and eat their food and teach them–and none of the young ladies married any of the missionaries who served in that area. And there weren’t any sister missionaries in the area to chide us (or to be embarrassed on our behalf) if we crossed the line. : )

By: Ardis E. Parshall

Ardis E. Parshall — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 16:11:12 +0000

Not only were you one of those girls, Chocolate, you got started purty darn young!

I knew one of those families, Alison, in France. Three teenage daughters, as smart and beautiful and flirty and active as anybody could hope for, a real asset to any ward whether it was southern France or the Salt Lake Valley … except the parents really wanted their girls to marry missionaries and go to the U.S. and promoted every possible contact between the elders and their daughters. It got to be more than a little embarrassing, especially when the elders played along far more than we sisters thought was appropriate.

By: Alison

Alison — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 15:52:26 +0000

What puzzles me is the counsel that missionaries should not be invited “socially” to the homes of girls. Would that not discount a great many of the members’ homes? Or is it OK to invite them “anti-socially”?
My experience as a missionary, long after the 1960s, was that the mothers of “the girls” could be guilty of “placing temptation” in an elder’s way, making sure that they were very definitely in their homes and flat-out encouraging relationships with their daughters.

By: Chocolate on my Cranium

Chocolate on my Cranium — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 15:38:30 +0000

I met my husband while he served as a missionary in our branch.

I was only 13 at the time and neither of us had a clue we’d meet up two years later when I went to Ricks as a 15 year old…but still, it’s fun to answer people when they ask how we met and see their reactions. You can practically see all the thoughts zipping by in their head “Oh you were one of those girls.”

By: Ardis E. Parshall

Ardis E. Parshall — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 15:13:58 +0000

AuH20! Ha!

Yeah,I see this as closely related to the current (and how far back?)modesty lectures. I can support an explanation of the rules missionaries live with, and cautions not to misinterpret the friendly, caring conversation of elders, and a frank discussion that for reasons of courtesy and self respect girls should respect mission rules and not make life any harder for missionaries than it already is … but to practically absolve a missionary who is “only human” if he wavers in his commitment, and offer “condemnation” to a girl who is “the reason” for a missionary’s failure … Ugh.

Does that count as a rant, or just a forehead slap?

By: Bonnie

Bonnie — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 15:04:35 +0000

Isn’t this just a wonderful example of how our social rules are principle and not doctrine? Wow. Reminds me of Marty Jezer’s text for my Women’s Studies class in undergrad who called 1945-1960 “The Dark Ages.” It’s less worth a rant than a forehead slap, because, joy of joys, that’s largely the blissfully distant past. So glad that’s not the dialogue now, at least in my experience. Thanks for this reminder of how good my life has been, being born in the 60s.

By: Mark B.

Mark B. — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 14:42:20 +0000

Some rather dubious chemistry there. (Disclaimer–I’m not a chemist, but my father and grandfather were chemists.) There are a lot of gold compounds, as a quick Google search shows. So much for gold not mixing with other elements. The noble gases are much less likely to make compounds, but nobody ever said that young missionaries were like argon or krypton. I’d be willing to bet that some mission president or AP has, however, compared missionaries to kryptonite.

Besides, in that presidential election year of 1964, Sister Cannon surely must have heard of that most famous of all gold compounds, AuH2O.

As to girls as the temptress–well, I’ll let someone else rant about that.