I heard a few weeks ago that there was going to be an important change announced at the Saturday session of this October's General Conference. I was at a marching band competition Saturday morning but I got home in time to watch the press conference following the morning session at which Jeffrey Holland spoke and answered questions from the press. I think its probably a good idea to make the age policy on missions the same as in other countries and I think its good for girls to get to go at a younger age if they want to.
Another policy that I hope they will at some point make uniform with other countries is the policy on marriage. Many U.S. church members may not be aware that in most other countries, couples can be married civilly at a ceremony where their non-member friends, parents and other loved ones can attend, and then be sealed in the temple later the same day or the next day. I think its pretty sure that this will eventually become the policy in the U.S. as well. Over the years, as the church has moved out of the Mormon corridor, more and more families are being hurt by this policy. Excluding a mother or father from their own child's wedding, a child who they have loved and cared for all his or her life, is just not understandable. A wedding should be a place for family members and friends of all faiths or beliefs to come together to support and show love for the couple. In the LDS church more recent history, it has become, instead, a painful and hurtful moment for many parents and a time that divides rather than unites families.
In the early years of the church, up through the 1960's marriages and temple sealings were commonly separate events. Mitt and Ann Romney, for example, were married in a civil ceremony in Ann Romney's home by Elder Edwin Jones and then flew the next day to SLC to be sealed. This was 1969. http://marriage.about.com/od/politics/p/mittromney.htm. It's still this way in most other countries. There's no reason why the policy shouldn't be this way again here in the U.S.
Elder Holland stated that part of the reason for the change in missionary age was the many requests for exceptions to the current policy. There have been a number of reports I have heard that there is an increasing number of requests for ring ceremonies and civil marriage ceremonies and exceptions to the marriage policy of having to wait for a year to be sealed. Many couples do not wish to exclude their parents and loved ones from their marriages. This is why I hope and predict that this policy will eventually change as well.
One other aspect of Elder Holland's remarks yesterday that kind of concerns me was when he stated that parents would have to do an even better job of training and preparing their boys to be ready for missions at an earlier age, including seminary classes, study of the Book of Mormon, and systematic study of the missionary handbook Preach My Gospel. To those outside this church, this sounds, reasonably I think, like indoctrination. Wouldn't it be better, some might ask, to teach children to investigate multiple sources, to teach them how to determine what sources are reliable and which are supported by evidence, to teach them to question, to reason, and then later in life, make a decision about what, if any, religion or life philosophy to follow? As it is now, when my grandsons turn 12 years old and are ordained Deacons, they pretty much have the next 10 years of their life charted out for them. Is that really good? What about their individual choices for their own life? What about the young man who may believe in the church but doesn't want to go on a mission but wants to do something else constructive? I just don't feel comfortable about the idea of saying to a 12 year old, "Here's what you will be doing with your life when you are older."
