Today, a friend asked a question in response to my Facebook post regarding an announcement made today that LDS young men would now be eligible to serve missions at the age of 18 (and after graduating high school) and LDS young women would now be eligible to serve missions at the age of 19.  The question was very basic:  Why the age difference?  What happens to girls in that extra year to make them as worthy as 18-year-old boys?

Previously, the ages for LDS young men and young women to serve missions were 19 and 21, respectively.  I remember as a teenager growing up in the church, wondering about this age difference.

My friend’s question really made me stop and think about the matter.  Here are my thoughts on it.

President Monson said today that the girls aren’t under the same mandate as boys in our church when it comes to missions (and it’s always been that way, as far as I know).  In short, boys are expected to serve missions; girls are not.  From an online report on it:  “Missionary service is a priesthood responsibility and expectation for young men in the Church, and young women are also encouraged to serve as they feel moved to do so.”  Due to this mandate, it makes sense to me for the age to be lowered for the young men so that it’s easier for them to make plans after high school.  So many guys I know felt like they had a year of just waiting before they were able to serve their missions.  Perhaps this explains the later age for the girls, as well; since girls aren’t under the same mandate to serve a mission, they have a little more time to decide if they want to serve a mission or not.

As for the mandate itself, men and women in the LDS church have different responsibilities and abilities that work together.  LDS men are able to hold the Priesthood, which empowers them to baptize, among other things.  LDS women do not have this same ability.  (And hence part of the mandate men have to serve missions versus women.)  However, I’ve never seen it (men holding the Priesthood and women not holding it) as a discrepancy that exists to keep men superior to women.  Instead, as I have served in the church in various callings, I have seen that women have innate abilities that men don’t have (such as women’s intuition, more natural inclination to be spiritual, more natural inclination towards caring for children); if women were to hold the Priesthood, what need would there be of men?  Women would then not only be able to, but would be responsible for every single aspect of raising a family.  Men, by virtue of the Priesthood authority, have responsibilities that women don’t; but they cannot run things all by themselves, either.  Imagine a primary (children ages 18 months to 12) being run only by men?  Or teenage girls only ever being taught by men?  It just wouldn’t work.  So, men have some abilities given to them, women have others, and, together, they work to keep the church (and, on a smaller scale, families) working.

I know there are MANY cases where women are raising families on their own, and cases where men are doing the same, but, even then, women have men they can turn to who hold this Priesthood authority to help when needed with those things that only the men can do (i.e., give blessings to their children).  And for the men raising families on their own, there are women in callings in the church to help, as well.

So, to sum up my thoughts – I don’t believe the age difference for serving missions comes from a desire to present inequality between genders, but, rather, a matter of what LDS young men and young women are expected to do.