Shortened Missions for Athletes?

[webbles]

11 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

I did see that in 2024 there were about 308k baptisms. That is ~ 1.7% of the current approx church membership of 17.5mil. 1.7%.
at that rate using the rule of 72 it will take about 42 years for the church population to double if convert baptisms are the only increase. As current birth rates in Utah/az esp continue to decrease, children of record numbers will also diminish. That combined with an upcoming huge amount of members dying (boomers) I see the growth rate flip to a negative in less than a decade. My gen (genx) is leaving in fairly large numbers. I grew up in a super TBM stake (mckonkie disciples) and we had huge amounts of youth. Today (40 yrs later) nearly everyone I know is not necessarily out ( resigned) but have not been active in a few decades. Almost all are divorced. I’m in the same boat but still married to sane lucky woman.  My family and I are all inactive at this point. One even served a mission a couple years ago and he is now out. No one is resigning as it just simply doesn’t matter. Among my siblings before both my parents died, we had just a couple cousins out of the church. Since the last grandparent died now there are over twenty ( that’s about 30% ish) who are publicly out, openly lesbian, not going on missions etc. just a few years ago no one dared pull those stunts . Today- yep very few in the family are visibly involved in church stuff. I even have other siblings who are now done. 
 

now that I’m in this circle,  am learning from friends they just stay PIMO and act active s they won’t be disinherited or disappoint their boomer parents. As they die off, the gen x activity will die off as well. Most say they won’t resign because someone will just do the ordinances for them again anyway. Their situation kinda lines up with mine. 
 

anywhoo we will see how growth goes, but Im in the camp of it actually going negative. If the church were to count only members who are active and not people who literally have not been seen in nearly a hundred years , I’m afraid the numbers would be significantly different. I’m in a super heavy populated Mormon area in gilbert. Our ward boundary is very small. Very few move outs, but attendance in our ward has halved if not more since we moved here ten years ago. This is a ward that filled the chapel, overflow and into the gym. Now we don’t even come close to filling the chapel. For reference our ward boundary isn’t even 1/2 by 1/2 mile. No one has really moved out- people just stopped coming. 

I have not really looked into it but I thought the church reduced ward and stake numbers requirements so that may be a factor in sudden stake and ward growth. 

 

There hasn't been a sudden stake and ward growth.  The requirements that you mention actually make it harder for stakes and wards to be created outside of the US/Canada area.  It does make it easier for stakes and wards to be created in the US/Canada but most of the growth is outside of US/Canada.  You can see an analysis on what the requirement change means at https://ldschurchgrowth.blogspot.com/search/label/Standards for Creating New Units

Also, the blog does deal with PIMOs.  The person behind it has done surveys with members and tries to figure out what the actual membership count is for active, believing members.  In some areas, it estimates the actual believing members is barely over 20%.

You are correct that the church has had declining membership in areas of the world.  In 2020-2021 period, 22 US states declined in membership.  The fact that you see declining membership in Gilbert is already seen and accounted for by the blog.  That's why I like that blog because it looks at a more holistic view.  Just because the church is shrinking in Gilbert, AZ doesn't mean it is shrinking.  And just because the church is growing astronomically in DR Congo (they gained 57 new congregations last year) doesn't mean the church is growing astronomically.

Ever year, the blog will put out some posts around the statistical report.  These are really useful in looking at the long term growth/shrinkage of the church.  Here's the latest on dealing with congregations - https://ldschurchgrowth.blogspot.com/2025/04/congregational-growth-by-country-in-2024.html

You can see that US lost 15 congregations but, shockingly, it is less than it was loosing previously (last year it lost 21 and the year before that it lost 62).  The post analyzes whether that means that the church is trying to "hide" the shrinkage but it shows that the number of members per congregation has barely changed.  So, they aren't packing more people in a congregation nor are they making a lot of tiny congregations.

 

[Calm]

nvm

Edited July 4, 2025 by Calm

[Notatbm]

19 minutes ago, Calm said:

There are members outside of the Mormon Corridor, more than inside, including places with higher birth rates.

I agree. The church is also allegedly counting members who are under the age of 110 years old and who have not been seen for potentially up to 100 years. Once all these start falling off the books, there will be a pretty big drop if the church reports them. I assume they will. At my current status now- I  will be counted for about 50 more years even though I don’t attend, pay tithing, go to the temple or have anything to do with the church. Counting me and my family as members is pretty much a fake number. 
 

I think it was Mexico who reported in their latest census about 350k who identified as Mormon.  The church says it’s about 1.5 million?? That will not end well. We had what twenty plus years of baseball baptism shenanigans?? That ought to account for at least a million who don’t show up ever if my son’s experience is any indication. 
 

anyway- we are all just guessing since the church does not publish complete stats. I’m sure they are super good and faith promoting but for some reason it is a secret. No one is allowed to see. It’s all a guessing game and trust. 

[webbles]

35 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

I think it was Mexico who reported in their latest census about 350k who identified as Mormon.  The church says it’s about 1.5 million?? That will not end well. We had what twenty plus years of baseball baptism shenanigans?? That ought to account for at least a million who don’t show up ever if my son’s experience is any indication. 

The latest census showed that the self-identified members had barely changed since the last census.  See https://ldschurchgrowth.blogspot.com/2022/07/self-affiliated-latter-day-saints-in.html

Quote

The 2010 census reported 314,932 Latter-day Saints, whereas the 2020 census reported 337,998 Latter-day Saints. There was a net increase of only 23,066 self-affiliated Latter-day Saints between 2010 and 2020, whereas Church-reported membership increased by 246,985. Thus, the increase in the number of census-reported Latter-day Saints was 9.3% of the Church-reported increase in membership during this time. The Church in Mexico has struggled for decades with low convert retention and member activity rates. Probably only 20% of Church-reported membership in Mexico regularly attends church - a percentage that has not appeared to have significantly changed in the past two decades based on survey data from returned missionaries and local members and census data (i.e., 23.2% of Church-reported membership self-affiliated on the census in 2000).

So even though the church baptized over 200k, only 20k were retained.

[Notatbm]

42 minutes ago, webbles said:

So even though the church baptized over 200k, only 20k were retained.

Thats higher than I thought, but pretty bad numbers. I’m betting if the 20k retained, only about 20% or less of them ever go to church. 
 

the church could fill in the blanks in all that his, I wonder why they don’t?

[webbles]

42 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

Thats higher than I thought, but pretty bad numbers. I’m betting if the 20k retained, only about 20% or less of them ever go to church. 
 

the church could fill in the blanks in all that his, I wonder why they don’t?

If 20k self identify, then I would assume close to 100% go to church or desire to go to church but can't go for some reason.  I think it would be fairly rare to self identify as a member of the church and not desire to go to church.  How many PIMOs would self-identify in a private, anonymous census?  I would think they would say they aren't LDS.

I would love more statistical data from the church, but it has never done that and I don't expect it to ever do that.  I doubt there is any nefarious designs.  I feel it is really only useful for data nerds.  As an example of what we can tease out of the existing statistics, https://ldschurchgrowth.blogspot.com/2025/04/2024-statisical-report.html points out that the church has a "children of record" issue.  In 2024, only 91,617 were recorded which means that only 0.53% of the church membership is babies.  Compared to 1982 (which was 2.5%) that is abysmal.  Either lots of women stopped having kids or the women who are having kids are not recording them with the church.  I suspect the later.  It could be that most of the new converts are men (doubtful) or already had children (and so the kids would be converts and not children of record).

[webbles]

sltrib has an article about Ryder Lions and Brock Harris who are both going to BYU and to a mission.  It has several quotes from Brock and his dad saying that he will be doing a 1 year mission.  It sounds like he will just ask to be released early.  https://www.sltrib.com/sports/byu-cougars/2025/11/22/byu-football-recruits-ryder-lyons/

Quote

“Brock was like, ‘Well, could I do that?’” Todd Harris, Brock Harris’ father, said. “I go, ‘Yes, you can go six months and say, I’m done.’ It’s your mission.”

“Ryder was like, ‘I’m going for a year.’ And that’s my plan, too,” Brock Harris said.

 

Quote

Recently, Harris was called to serve his church in Spokane, Washington. He plans to serve his church faithfully.

“Just come back a little earlier,” he said. “Everything’s the same, though.”

Harris plans to return home after a year and enroll at BYU with Lyons in 2027, starting their freshman season ready to contribute for the Cougars.

But plans, of course, can change. Walker Lyons intended to serve for a year but ended up staying an extra four months, Harris pointed out.

“Who knows,” he said, “maybe I’ll stay a little longer while I’m out there.”

 

So it does look like they are planning on doing a shortened mission.  They are still being called to a full 24 month mission but will ask to leave after only a year.  I would hope the Mission President says no to that.  Coming home just so you can make a million dollars playing football (or any sport) feels like a bad reason to leave early.

I guess the other argument is, is it better that they serve a partial mission vs none at all?  The article also talks about how Brock originally didn't think about going on a mission and it wasn't until Ryder told him about his older brother who only served 16 months that he felt like he could fit a mission in.

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

would hope the Mission President says no to that. 

Rather than saying no, as I don’t see it as appropriate for the Mission President to be acting like a warden, I hope that if he is so inspired that it is a good thing for the young men to stay, that he use persuasion to change their minds.  They are not children anymore meant to have someone else making their decisions for them. And perhaps that is what you meant.

Edited November 23, 2025 by Calm

[MustardSeed]

Mission President: no. 
missionary: buys ticket gets uber goes home.  Also gets dressed himself but that’s obvious. 
 

i’ve actually heard of people asking to be released from their callings, and the bishop tells them no. And I’m like, wat? 

Edited November 23, 2025 by MustardSeed

[Calm]

47 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

i’ve actually heard of people asking to be released from their callings, and the bishop tells them no. And I’m like, wat? 

Yeah, it’s bizarre to me.  Sure, try and talk them out if it, though preferably avoid threads of losing celestial brownie points or variations on that theme.  Threatening damnation, loss of faith, kids going wayward should be left up to God if he cares to do it.

Because it is sure going to increase someone’s faith if their mission president/bishop/whatever church leader tries to hold them hostage.

I have heard horror stories of mission presidents holding on to passports for safety (not a bad thing in some cases)/control of missionaries (just wrong).  Is that actually possible?  I would be very nervous with some young men and women keeping their papers safe, so I don’t have an automatic issue with that, but it’s just wrong not to treat the passports as their property and hand them over on request.  The only reason I can think of is if there was an extreme mental health issue involved and holding on to it kept the missionary in safe company as they were sent back home with someone going with them, at which time they are turned over to parents to care for.

Curious if there is any info on this from anyone here as I trust most here will not make up sensational stories.

Edited November 23, 2025 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

🙄 Getting there having difficulties and asking to go home early is WAY different than going and planning to ask to be released early- what so you can "mission" off some checklist?

Don't bother if your heart really isn't in it.

Edited November 23, 2025 by ZealouslyStriving

[Calm]

26 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

🙄 Getting there having difficulties and asking to go home early is WAY different than going and planning to ask to be released early- what do you can "mission" off some checklist?

Don't bother if your heart really isn't in it.

Some of us recognize we wouldn’t have the mental and physical endurance (we need to operate on our own routines for health reasons) for a full two years or there are significant financial reasons (burden on parents, wanting to stay out of debt as a student as much as possible as counseled by the Church and possibly losing a scholarship if gone over a certain amount of time, needing to meet other certain requirements for academic programs that if not met means one loses an opportunity of a lifetime, an opportunity the Spirit tells one is a good thing for you, etc…and yet one would be fully committed while there on the mission, so I don’t think planning an early release is an automatic sign of lack of commitment or one’s heart not fully in.

Edited November 23, 2025 by Calm

[webbles]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Rather than saying no, as I don’t see it as appropriate for the Mission President to be acting like a warden, I hope that if he is so inspired that it is a good thing for the young men to stay, that he use persuasion to change their minds.  They are not children anymore meant to have someone else making their decisions for them. And perhaps that is what you meant.

Yeah, "saying no" is probably not the correct way to say it.  But something like a "dishonorable discharge".  I don't think missions do that anymore, though.

I would hope, though, that if they are planning on serving a shortened mission, they give the mission department a heads up so that the mission can get a replacement after they leave.

[bluebell]

8 hours ago, webbles said:

sltrib has an article about Ryder Lions and Brock Harris who are both going to BYU and to a mission.  It has several quotes from Brock and his dad saying that he will be doing a 1 year mission.  It sounds like he will just ask to be released early.  https://www.sltrib.com/sports/byu-cougars/2025/11/22/byu-football-recruits-ryder-lyons/

 

 

So it does look like they are planning on doing a shortened mission.  They are still being called to a full 24 month mission but will ask to leave after only a year.  I would hope the Mission President says no to that.  Coming home just so you can make a million dollars playing football (or any sport) feels like a bad reason to leave early.

I guess the other argument is, is it better that they serve a partial mission vs none at all?  The article also talks about how Brock originally didn't think about going on a mission and it wasn't until Ryder told him about his older brother who only served 16 months that he felt like he could fit a mission in.

 

It seems disingenuous to accept a call to serve 24 months knowing you are not going to serve 24 months.  But it's been him and God.

[bluebell]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

Some of us recognize we wouldn’t have the mental and physical endurance (we need to operate on our own routines for health reasons) for a full two years or there are significant financial reasons (burden on parents, wanting to stay out of debt as a student as much as possible as counseled by the Church and possibly losing a scholarship if gone over a certain amount of time, needing to meet other certain requirements for academic programs that if not met means one loses an opportunity of a lifetime, an opportunity the Spirit tells one is a good thing for you, etc…and yet one would be fully committed while there on the mission, so I don’t think planning an early release is an automatic sign of lack of commitment or one’s heart not fully in.

Typically in these situations now they would be called on a service mission, right?  

[Calm]

16 hours ago, bluebell said:

Typically in these situations now they would be called on a service mission, right?  

I assume that is SOP, but what if someone really wanted to serve a proselyting mission?  Is the stigma that a service mission is less gone yet?

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

I assume that is SOP, but what if someone really wanted to serve a proselyting mission?  Is the stigma that a service mission is less gone yet?

It should be gone by now.  Especially since anyone can be called to serve a service mission now.  As I understand it, you put in your papers and you could get called to either type depending on different factors. I think most missionaries will still serve proselytizing missions if they don't have mitigating circumstances but it's not a given any more.  I personally know a sister missionary that was called to a service mission and it was a huge surprise to everyone.

Because I'm me, if I was in church leadership and heard this young man's plan, I would recall him to a service mission rather than let him use a proselytizing mission that way.  Not saying I'd be right, but that would be my first instinct.

[Notatbm]

On 11/24/2025 at 12:38 PM, bluebell said:

It should be gone by now.  Especially since anyone can be called to serve a service mission now. 

The criteria to serve a service mission is still exclusive to those who have physical, mental or emotional issues. Exceptions are for early return missionaries who are on the mend with injuries/ illnesses or they simply don’t have a whole lot of time left to go back out to door knocking missions. 

[Notatbm]

On 11/24/2025 at 12:38 PM, bluebell said:

Because I'm me, if I was in church leadership and heard this young man's plan, I would recall him to a service mission rather than let him use a proselytizing mission that way.  Not saying I'd be right, but that would be my first instinct.

I agree that would be better. Personally wouldn’t let them go at all. As soon as we let the youth dictate the terms of their mission service control of the church has been lost. He should be made an example of and not allowed to go if this is his plan. 

[Notatbm]

On 11/24/2025 at 12:27 PM, Calm said:  Is the stigma that a service mission is less gone yet?

I’m in gilbert az. They are still not regarded as real missions as far as I know. People ask arms all the time if they served prostletizing or service missions. Easy way for a young lady in a YSA to find out if a potential mate has some kind of issues before getting involved with them. I mean having issues is how one gets a service mission in the first place.

[bluebell]

29 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

I agree that would be better. Personally wouldn’t let them go at all. As soon as we let the youth dictate the terms of their mission service control of the church has been lost. He should be made an example of and not allowed to go if this is his plan. 

Yes yes, that's exactly what I meant.  10/10 read comprehension.      

[bluebell]

33 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

The criteria to serve a service mission is still exclusive to those who have physical, mental or emotional issues. Exceptions are for early return missionaries who are on the mend with injuries/ illnesses or they simply don’t have a whole lot of time left to go back out to door knocking missions. 

I haven't looked into it.  I only know that the girl (and her family) who was called to one was incredibly surprised.

[Rain]

On 11/23/2025 at 1:35 PM, Calm said:

Yeah, it’s bizarre to me.  Sure, try and talk them out if it, though preferably avoid threads of losing celestial brownie points or variations on that theme.  Threatening damnation, loss of faith, kids going wayward should be left up to God if he cares to do it.

Because it is sure going to increase someone’s faith if their mission president/bishop/whatever church leader tries to hold them hostage.

I have heard horror stories of mission presidents holding on to passports for safety (not a bad thing in some cases)/control of missionaries (just wrong).  Is that actually possible?  I would be very nervous with some young men and women keeping their papers safe, so I don’t have an automatic issue with that, but it’s just wrong not to treat the passports as their property and hand them over on request.  The only reason I can think of is if there was an extreme mental health issue involved and holding on to it kept the missionary in safe company as they were sent back home with someone going with them, at which time they are turned over to parents to care for.

Curious if there is any info on this from anyone here as I trust most here will not make up sensational stories.

There were some MP who kept them before covid.  On the Missionay Mommas group I found out that became a problem during covid when some countries were shutting down. I don't remember any details, but there were several stories of what was happening with their children.

[Notatbm]

On 11/28/2025 at 7:53 PM, bluebell said:

I haven't looked into it.  I only know that the girl (and her family) who was called to one was incredibly surprised.

Probably due to what the girl has disclosed in her interviews with either bishop or SP. Info family doesn’t know or they just don’t want public so of course they are “surprised.” 

Edited November 30, 2025 by Notatbm

[bluebell]

14 hours ago, Notatbm said:

Probably due to what the girl has disclosed in her interviews with either bishop or SP. Info family doesn’t know or they just don’t want public so of course they are “surprised.” 

Yes, assuming dishonesty on the part of the girl and/or family to explain it is on option.  Knowing her and her family, I don't personally see a reason to assume the worst of them to make a different narrative work.  I think in this case an 'i don't know' works better.