Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

One third of Millennial Mormons who go on a mission are returning early


Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I sincerely don't understand how parents, family members, youth advisers and mentors, bishops, stake presidents, etc. could all think these young people were ready to serve when clearly they weren't. What do you think people are missing?

Perhaps what is missing is inspiration/revelation. If you're going to blame youth leaders, bishops, stake presidents, parents etc for not knowing they weren't ready, I wonder if you would also blame the Q15 for issuing the call under revelation from God. Or maybe blame God?

Link to comment
8 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I sincerely don't understand how parents, family members, youth advisers and mentors, bishops, stake presidents, etc. could all think these young people were ready to serve when clearly they weren't. What do you think people are missing?

I think this might give you a taste of what many missions and areas in the U.S. deal with in terms of missionaries. I know that you regularly testify that your missionaries are of the highest quality (and I believe you), but there are many, many people for whom this is not their anecdotal experience.

I think the Church, and the overall missionary program, would be far better off using a "Gideon's Army" approach. Instead of trying to get as many young people on a mission as possible --- and keep them there with electronics, no adversity, and no challenge --- I think the approach should instead be only sending out the 30,000 or so strongest youth, almost exclusively foreign. Let the wards and stakes in the centers of strength teach their own investigators; there's no reason why missionaries would have to be sent to the intermountain west, for example. If youth are such that they have to be coddled and babysat, then a full-time mission isn't for them. 

My old stake (I'm not in the know about things in my new one) didn't have an early return problem, its problem instead was that only 13% of young men were serving missions (over years). There was significant pressure put on the stake president to improve this (understandably), and it was addressed by trying to send out more young men. Many of the ones who weren't going weren't inactive, and didn't have glaring moral problems --- they simply didn't want to go. Many are not doing anything else in their lives, either (work, school, etc.). This led to me counseling that the problem was really two-fold: a) millennial parenting that allows their kids to sit at home and play video games, while not serving a mission, going to school, going into the military, or working a real job that isn't a 20 hour a week fast food one. And b) none of these kids know their parents' mission stories. They don't know about people, places, events, adventures, etc. from their parents' own missions, because the parents haven't talked about them. No wonder they aren't excited about serving a mission! Why would they be? 

It's mostly a parental failure, mirroring society at large. Which one would hope wouldn't be present in the Church to the extent that it's present in society at large. 

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think this might give you a taste of what many missions and areas in the U.S. deal with in terms of missionaries. I know that you regularly testify that your missionaries are of the highest quality (and I believe you), but there are many, many people for whom this is not their anecdotal experience.

I think the Church, and the overall missionary program, would be far better off using a "Gideon's Army" approach. Instead of trying to get as many young people on a mission as possible --- and keep them there with electronics, no adversity, and no challenge --- I think the approach should instead be only sending out the 30,000 or so strongest youth, almost exclusively foreign. Let the wards and stakes in the centers of strength teach their own investigators; there's no reason why missionaries would have to be sent to the intermountain west, for example. If youth are such that they have to be coddled and babysat, then a full-time mission isn't for them. 

My old stake (I'm not in the know about things in my new one) didn't have an early return problem, its problem instead was that only 13% of young men were serving missions (over years). There was significant pressure put on the stake president to improve this (understandably), and it was addressed by trying to send out more young men. Many of the ones who weren't going weren't inactive, and didn't have glaring moral problems --- they simply didn't want to go. Many are not doing anything else in their lives, either (work, school, etc.). This led to me counseling that the problem was really two-fold: a) millennial parenting that allows their kids to sit at home and play video games, while not serving a mission, going to school, going into the military, or working a real job that isn't a 20 hour a week fast food one. And b) none of these kids know their parents' mission stories. They don't know about people, places, events, adventures, etc. from their parents' own missions, because the parents haven't talked about them. No wonder they aren't excited about serving a mission! Why would they be? 

It's mostly a parental failure, mirroring society at large. Which one would hope wouldn't be present in the Church to the extent that it's present in society at large. 

a) I think blaming the parents is going after the cheap and easy target. Of course there may be some truth in some instances, but blaming an entire generation of parents seems a bit comical to me. What you call parental failure may very well be parental success. Instead of 100% of kids serving because they feel pressured to serve or would feel guilt and shame if they didn't it is better to have 20% who serve out of enthusiasm and a feeling of mission for the work.

b) I don't want my kids to know my missionary experience. I have very few good memories from my mission, so if I were honest with my kids about that, and told them the truth of the experience, they wouldn't want anything to do with it, and I wouldn't blame them. I wonder how many parents don't share because they had experiences like I did.

IMO- having a blanket expectation that every young man should serve is a mistake. Personally, I'd prefer that young missionaries feel called to the work. They should feel a sense of mission prior to serving. Not being called to a specific work or mission doesn't mean there is anything wrong with the young person. It just means it may not be their calling. I would prefer a culture that nurtures every individual to seek their own calling for service. Trying to force every square peg into a round hole is a simplistic and damaging approach to service and life.

Link to comment
13 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I think that was a criticism of the Mormon Gender Issues Survey Group survey of Mormons. That group included John Dehlin and a few others. It was highly criticized. It doesn't apply to Jana's which attempted to be as random as possible and control for various demographics. She has up a discussion of her methodology and questions you can read through.

I'd originally said on Twitter the n for number of recent RMs might be too small, but I don't think that's true now that I look at it carefully. 

I don't think the 1/3 going home early is close to reality based on my observations, like so many others say. So, is the number skewed due to almost 1/3 of those surveyed being former members? Since the former members would be more likely to go home early, I wonder if that is where the number gets skewed? Is there any way to tell from her research that you saw?

Do you or anyone know what the percentage of former mormons is compared to practicing? Is it approximately 1/3 of practicing?

Edited by Exiled
Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I don't think the 1/3 going home early is close to reality based on my observations, like so many others say. So, is the number skewed due to almost 1/3 of those surveyed being former members? Since the former members would be more likely to go home early, I wonder if that is where the number gets skewed? Is there any way to tell from her research that you saw?

Exiled, what do you mean by this? Are you suggesting that those who are sent home early are more likely to become "former members"?

If that's the case, it would seem that sending missionaries home early is a HUGE long term problem that needs to be fixed. Sorry if I'm misunderstanding you.

Link to comment
26 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Exiled, what do you mean by this? Are you suggesting that those who are sent home early are more likely to become "former members"?

If that's the case, it would seem that sending missionaries home early is a HUGE long term problem that needs to be fixed. Sorry if I'm misunderstanding you.

I think he mixed up surveys.  It seems there are two different surveys associated here.  One was the UVU survey of missionaries who went home early and the other is the Next Mormons survey

The next Mormons survey, though, "did not have a question asking early returnees why they came home early, but there is one small survey, conducted by researchers at Utah Valley University, that canvassed that population for precisely this information. "  https://religionnews.com/2018/09/26/more-mormon-missionaries-are-coming-home-early-study-shows/

The NMS survey consisted of  "The online component sampled 1,156 self-identified Mormons and 540 self-identified former Mormons between September 8 and November 1, 2016"

I believe that's what Exiled is referring to.  

I'm feeling really skeptical of the results of the UVU survey though.  For one thing, as Clark described above, it appears to be heavily skewed and poorly sampled.  Thus, the results seem meaningless.  I thought it was cute that I was CFR'd for stating my observations in the real world, but that is largely what makes me skeptical fo the UVU survey.

The big problem we have here is people are complex.  It's hard to pin one motivation to someone's decision ever.  So to say that 36% of missionaries who went home early went home for mental health issues, 34% for physical heath, 12% for unresolved sins, 11% for breaking mission rules, is largely a tough conclusion to draw.  As it is if one breaks mission rules that one may not be taking the mission seriously, for instance.  If so, that one who didn't take it seriously, might also have not been very convicted in belief to begin with.  Or someone might be suffering from depression because that someone might not have ever been able to make the church teaching, that which was their whole life, as some might describe it, work in their mind and could never really believe, as we expect from missionaries.  Indeed, one person's little story in life could be complex enough that to put them in one category or another would not only be inaccurate but also would be arbitrary. If so, that UVU survey alone might be nothing more than results from confirmation bias.  

With that said, I'm guessing those surveyed in the UVU survey were largely those who remained in the Church, for whatever their reasons might be.  If so, the results are even more skewed.  

Edited by stemelbow
Link to comment
15 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I think he mixed up surveys.  It seems there are two different surveys associated here.  One was the UVU survey of missionaries who went home early and the other is the Next Mormons survey

The next Mormons survey, though, "did not have a question asking early returnees why they came home early, but there is one small survey, conducted by researchers at Utah Valley University, that canvassed that population for precisely this information. "  https://religionnews.com/2018/09/26/more-mormon-missionaries-are-coming-home-early-study-shows/

The NMS survey consisted of  "The online component sampled 1,156 self-identified Mormons and 540 self-identified former Mormons between September 8 and November 1, 2016"

I believe that's what Exiled is referring to.  

I'm feeling really skeptical of the results of the UVU survey though.  For one thing, as Clark described above, it appears to be heavily skewed and poorly sampled.  Thus, the results seem meaningless.  I thought it was cute that I was CFR'd for stating my observations in the real world, but that is largely what makes me skeptical fo the UVU survey.

The big problem we have here is people are complex.  It's hard to pin one motivation to someone's decision ever.  So to say that 36% of missionaries who went home early went home for mental health issues, 34% for physical heath, 12% for unresolved sins, 11% for breaking mission rules, is largely a tough conclusion to draw.  As it is if one breaks mission rules that one may not be taking the mission seriously, for instance.  If so, that one who didn't take it seriously, might also have not been very convicted in belief to begin with.  Or someone might be suffering from depression because that someone might not have ever been able to make the church teaching, that which was their whole life, as some might describe it, work in their mind and could never really believe, as we expect from missionaries.  Indeed, one person's little story in life could be complex enough that to put them in one category or another would not only be inaccurate but also would be arbitrary. If so, that UVU survey alone might be nothing more than results from confirmation bias.  

With that said, I'm guessing those surveyed in the UVU survey were largely those who remained in the Church, for whatever their reasons might be.  If so, the results are even more skewed.  

Thanks. That makes sense.

The thing that gets me about things like this, is it is information that could be very useful to parents, leaders, and those who are considering serving a mission. The Church has complete and actual numbers. They could share this information. Surveys really aren't necessary if the church would simply share it's information. I think they have an obligation to inform individuals and families of the statistics since they are asking such a great sacrifice and service.

The church knows this info. It could share. So far it has not. Membership has a right to know the statistics and risk young people may be taking. Can anyone explain why the church should not disclose information about how many missionaries leave the mission field early?

Link to comment
22 hours ago, phaedrus ut said:

According to Jana Reiss's column at Religion News Service 1/3 of Mellennial Mormons who go out on a mission are returning early. 

https://religionnews.com/2018/09/26/more-mormon-missionaries-are-coming-home-early-study-shows/

Are missions harder now than they once were, are missionaries softer now, or is it something else? 

Phaedrus 

Absurd.  Nonsense.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Exiled, what do you mean by this? Are you suggesting that those who are sent home early are more likely to become "former members"?

If that's the case, it would seem that sending missionaries home early is a HUGE long term problem that needs to be fixed. Sorry if I'm misunderstanding you.

Well, I would think that sending someone home early might be a cause for someone to leave due to the punishment stigma. I would have wanted to leave due to the shame had I been sent home early. I would have explored this question with the former members who left early. Also, someone who leaves early because they want to leave early seems to be already on their way out. So, this too could be a possibility. In any event, I think sending missionaries home early should be avoided if possible. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The church knows this info. It could share. So far it has not. Membership has a right to know the statistics and risk young people may be taking. Can anyone explain why the church should not disclose information about how many missionaries leave the mission field early?

It's probably the same reason doubt is discouraged. If everyone has some doubt but doesn't publicly express it, that can change if one comes out as it gives the others courage to voice their concerns as well. Among the borderline missionaries, perhaps full disclosure would discourage those from joining the missionary ranks.

Link to comment
12 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I sincerely don't understand how parents, family members, youth advisers and mentors, bishops, stake presidents, etc. could all think these young people were ready to serve when clearly they weren't. What do you think people are missing?

Remember the parenting is part of the problem.  Kids are raised in this “safe” environment now with low expectations.  Coddleing does not an adult make.  Where is the tough love???  Of course they have mental issues when demands are placed upon them.  If the kid is worthy to go and not an overt phsyco how can a bishop / sk prez deny them?

An 18 yr old American is too young to be going.  period.  They don’t have jobs as teenagers and don’t know how to stick it out and accept resonsibility.  They would greatly benefit from a year of college, vocational school or full time work before they are allowed to go.   The YM / YW programs are nothing but entertainment anymore.  Why arent they doing service 1x per month, studing the gosple, physically demanding activities,  why r they allowed to read the scriptures from their phones, ...?

In the era that I served, the attitude was:  get out there, work your a$$ off, suck it up and the only way you are coming home rarly is in a body bag.  Now, why is coming home early such an easy alternative?

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Durangout said:

Remember the parenting is part of the problem.  Kids are raised in this “safe” environment now with low expectations.  Coddleing does not an adult make.  Where is the tough love???  Of course they have mental issues when demands are placed upon them.  If the kid is worthy to go and not an overt phsyco how can a bishop / sk prez deny them?

An 18 yr old American is too young to be going.  period.  They don’t have jobs as teenagers and don’t know how to stick it out and accept resonsibility.  They would greatly benefit from a year of college, vocational school or full time work before they are allowed to go.   The YM / YW programs are nothing but entertainment anymore.  Why arent they doing service 1x per month, studing the gosple, physically demanding activities,  why r they allowed to read the scriptures from their phones, ...?

In the era that I served, the attitude was:  get out there, work your a$$ off, suck it up and the only way you are coming home rarly is in a body bag.  Now, why is coming home early such an easy alternative?

I too walked uphill to and from school and in the snow.  I was sweeper boy #2 in my dad's construction business (my brother being #1) starting at age 10 and had jobs ever since.  There might be something to kids maybe not being ready at 18 to go out and do an adult job.  I also worked in my father's retail business after he sold his construction business and gained invaluable sales experience there.  I also left when I was a couple of months shy of 20.  There is a definite difference in maturity between 18 and 20.  Nevertheless, I think the goal in lowering the age, in part, was to have a seamless transfer from parent to church and bypassing secular influences that could dissuade one from serving in the first place.  Marriage was also a factor, I believe, as the program is to serve the mission and then get married right after.  Lowering the age for women was done for this reason, in part, so the ages of male and female missionaries would be closer together and facilitate matches

Link to comment

I have spent the last 8 years or so both as a ward YM Pres and then Stake YM Pres.  

Of my YM that decided to go on missions, there have been almost half come home!  And that is not even mentioning the many who claimed to have testimonies, but who opted not to go (my own son included).  All of the cases are a little different, but none of them were for physical illness.  Almost all of them were from social anxieties and/or trouble separating from social media and gaming.  One of them came home over LGBTQ issues - specifically too many confrontational conversations with other missionaries who said things about gay people that were hurtful and offensive to the young missionary and upset him enough to question being on a mission.

 

I know my experience is antidotal, but there it is FWIW.   🙂

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Also why does the title of the thread have to specify Millenials? As compared to all the Gen Xers and Baby Boomers going on missions in their late teens and early twenties right now.

The ⅓ figure is just for Millennials and predates the surge. So you're talking roughly 2001 - 2018.

Link to comment

In my mission, I only know of one missionary out of 90 who went home early over the entire two years, and that was because his mother died while he was in the field and he really did have a breakdown.  Given the level of gossip among missionaries in my mission (unfortunately), I think I probably would have heard if anyone else got sent home early.

In my ward, out of ten or so people who left, only one went home early, due to unconfessed sin.

This was all during 2001-2008.

So, I am a little skeptical of the 1/3 number, but I am basing this on my own personal experience.  Maybe I have just been lucky or something?

Link to comment
35 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

The ⅓ figure is just for Millennials and predates the surge. So you're talking roughly 2001 - 2018.

I came home in 2000. Missed being a Millennial by one year. Good to know I was right to look down at those greenie snots who thought they were awesome because they were post-raising the bar missionaries. ;) 

Link to comment
On 9/26/2018 at 12:47 PM, phaedrus ut said:

According to Jana Reiss's column at Religion News Service 1/3 of Mellennial Mormons who go out on a mission are returning early. 

https://religionnews.com/2018/09/26/more-mormon-missionaries-are-coming-home-early-study-shows/

Are missions harder now than they once were, are missionaries softer now, or is it something else? 

Phaedrus 

I think the world is simply harder for and on everyone. It undermines parenting and normal development. I think there are very real physical obstacles (such as environment, food, conspiring men, etc.) and burdensome societal pressures, and the means (technology, prosperity, media) to maximize those pressures, that give those choice spirits reserved for the latter days a run for their money. I think they also tend to have greater opportunities and support to succeed after setbacks and disappointments; it is up to the more experienced saints to provide that and to nurture that perspective.

Link to comment
15 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If you're going to blame youth leaders, bishops, stake presidents, parents etc for not knowing they weren't ready, I wonder if you would also blame the Q15 for issuing the call under revelation from God.

I'm not interested in blaming people, just in better understanding the situation. I would expect you to understand the difference, but this is not the first time I've been disappointed by someone.

Quote

Or maybe blame God?

God lets people make all kinds of poor choices. He's been doing it since the beginning. It's called 'agency'. It's messy, but it's the only way forwards.

But back on topic, I really wonder if people think these young people are prepared to serve missions and are stupendously wrong or if they deep-down know there are serious preparation issues but just hope it'll all come good if they go ahead and send them out anyway.

When I was studying in America, I knew a number of postgraduate students who had completed their first degrees at BYU. Some of them told me that, in their opinions, many clueless LDS parents who hadn't really done very well at instilling basic gospel knowledge or values in their children sent them off to BYU as a sort of 'reform school'. I suspect a number of American parents have treated missions the same way. I don't know if that's part of what we're dealing with here or not. I really am just trying to understand.

As a former Young Men president and bishopric counsellor in my ward (and one who has stayed in close contact with all the young men I worked with in those capacities), I can say with confidence that we knew most of the strengths and weaknesses of our youth. We certainly understood what they needed in order to succeed as full-time missionaries, and we created individual plans to help each one of them get there. We never sent one off until we were confident that he was as prepared as we could reasonably get him.

I wonder if it helps that most of our ward's missionaries have not come out of families that were really grounded themselves, so we didn't just assume that active family = prepared to serve. I can see that happening.

Our second missionary to serve did come from an active family, but I knew that behind closed doors, they were a mess. I'd also worked with this young man since he was 12, so I knew him very well too. Even after he'd passed both his bishop's interview and stake president's interview, I met with him to check on his commitment. I told him in no uncertain terms that if I was unsatisfied with his ability to complete his mission, I would be seeking to put his application on hold. We had a long talk. We discussed some of his long-term issues with faith. In the end, he gave me a commitment that he would give 100% no matter what. I told him that I'd be there for him during the whole process.

We emailed most weeks. He did really struggle in the beginning, but it was in ways that I'd warned him about, and so he was not taken by surprise. I think that my email responses to his questions and concerns helped. He served the full two years, diligently and faithfully. He ended up being such a good companion to an American Elder who was suffering from depression that he served with him twice. He came home grounded and has been active ever since. He's now serving in our ward Young Men presidency.

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
Link to comment
15 hours ago, rongo said:

I know that you regularly testify that your missionaries are of the highest quality (and I believe you), but there are many, many people for whom this is not their anecdotal experience.

From my perspective, they don't always come that way, though. I set up a couple of appointments for this past Tuesday evening -- one with a less-active family and one with a recent convert -- and asked a set of Elders to go with me. In the car, the American Elder confessed that he hadn't been very prepared to serve a mission because his entire upbringing consisted of nothing but binge-watching Netflix and playing online computer games. I never would have guessed this because he's a fine missionary in my opinion, but he insisted he was not exaggerating and that he now realises he was allowed to almost completely waste his youth  

Thankfully, it seems that he's chosen to rise to the occasion. No doubt he should have been better prepared -- and as per my post above, I genuinely wonder why his parents and Church leaders thought a life of nothing but TV and gaming was adequate preparation for a mission -- but I strongly suspect that it helps to have walked into a mission where we are so desperate for help that we just put our missionaries to work. :unknw:

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
Link to comment
On 9/26/2018 at 1:24 PM, carbon dioxide said:

Missions have always been hard.  Nothing has changed.  Missionaries just are not ready.  They are going out at 18 and they are addicted to their phones.  Many teens have limited work experience at a job while in high school.  To take a person who just goes to school, text messages, and does a few other things and then throw them into a 3rd world country and have them work hard is probably not going to work well in many instances.

Just for the record I think the one third number is preposterous. 

That being said, when young men left at 19 most had a year or so outside the home experience even if it was just having a job to save for a mission.  Being away at school, working, and gaining some life experience has a lot of value IMHO. 

The level of training received is very lacking in my opinion.  And tracking is a total waste in the US  

There is a lot they can do.  Working with part member families, meeting people in the ward to which they are assigned can be very productive.  

My business is dependent on growth by developing client referrals.  Clients only refer if there is a level of trust in our competence and ability.  This is only developed with interactions and allowing relationships to develop.  Many mission presidents consider interacting with the membership is a waste of time   But the truth is exactly the opposite   Missionaries cannot obtain referrals from people that don’t have any sort of relationship with them  

 

Link to comment
11 hours ago, Durangout said:

If the kid is worthy to go and not an overt phsyco how can a bishop / sk prez deny them?

If I knew a 'kid' was unlikely to thrive as a missionary, I would 100% delay his going until we could solve his preparation issues. But that would also mean a serious investment in preparing him.

It's easy to bemoan 'kids these days' (whose issues, I think, are quite real in many cases); it's another thing altogether to actually step up and do something about it.

(I genuinely wonder how many of the men on this forum who regularly complain about missionary quality have been slack home teaching/ministering companions to the young men they’ve been assigned to mentor.)

Quote

The YM / YW programs are nothing but entertainment anymore.

That's not what they're designed to be. When I was YM president, we took our quorum presidencies seriously and tried hard to implement Duty to God fully. Our boys were engaged in ministry, in growth and development (both physical, mental and spiritual), etc. They became masters of planning with a purpose. In my mind's eye, I keep seeing the brass serpent and wondering what the hell we think we're doing instead.

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
Link to comment

I think most of us older people have visions of our youth where we walked to school uphill both ways to school. Though I do think that older generations were more prepared to be independent and capable of being away from our families, I still have to believe the difficulty of today's missions are just as challenging, but in different ways than in the past. I cannot even conceive of how difficult it would be to use technology as a missionary to find those interested in the church. I am not sure I would be capable of handling it.

It may be that for us there simply was not a question of returning home for any reason. Does indicate we were stronger or more committed? I am not sure, but it was the way we were raised. Manhood had different meanings back then and quitting was not an option under any circumstances or for any endeavor. Manhood is not discussed in those terms any longer and such archaic perceptions have long since been abandoned.  

Anecdotally, in our extended families, on my wife's side, two missionaries came home early. One came home due to emotional problems and he has since gone on and is finishing his doctorate and the other came home for ten months and then returned to his mission and completed it. That is over the last 12 years. I have no memory of a missionary coming home early in any ward I attended during that period. 

Edited by Storm Rider
Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

It may be that for us there simply was not a question of returning home for any reason. Does indicate we were stronger or more committed? I am not sure, but it was the way we were raised. Manhood had different meanings back then and quitting was not an option under any circumstances or for any endeavor.

I think all this did, though, was to delay the inevitable. I've kept in contact with a number of former missionaries from my mission, and those who just gritted their teeth and endured the experience are all out of the Church now anyway.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, mrmarklin said:

Many mission presidents consider interacting with the membership is a waste of time   But the truth is exactly the opposite   Missionaries cannot obtain referrals from people that don’t have any sort of relationship with them  

Agree! The perfect situation is for members and missionaries to work shoulder to shoulder. The work of salvation belongs to us; they are the reinforcements sent to assist. When we work together, the work gets done.

I have a feeling that at some point I'm going to have a personal stewardship interview with the Saviour, and at no point in explaining that my time was limited because of work, etc. do I want Him to say, 'Well, that's why I sent you full-time ministers. What did you do with them?'

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...