Are Sister Missionaries More Effective Than Elder Missionaries?

[Duncan]

It is important to have something specific to work towards. If you ask a girl on a date but do not provide a specific timeline, then it will never happen. You ask a girl on a date and you provide the date and time. The research shows that people are not offended by this. People prefer it. Get a commitment, and start to teach, but as soon as they feel the spirit, set a date. Follow the principles of SMART goals. There is nothing underhanded about it. In the New Testament and in the Book of Mormon, once they had their attention they got them baptized.

fair enough! Now I figured out why I can't get any dates, "want to date me, yeah I guess, great! well, see ya later!"

[halconero]

Missionaries aren't "making a sale" (i.e. working towards a short-term, single event commitment). Even a real estate agent is just working to get the papers signed. They don't care what happens after that (hence, I haven't heard from my real estate agent since I got the keys to my house years ago).

Missionaries should be working to help people make a lasting, long-term commitment that results in Church attendance for the rest of that person's life. So the question is whether or not seeking an "early" baptismal commitment is more likely to result in converts who do this. I suspect the statistics would show that it doesn't. Sure, there are golden contacts that might be the exception, but I would argue that in general, the longer a person waits for baptism (and meanwhile attends Church and studies and prays while preparing), the more likely they are to maintain their commitment to the Church.

If the focus were just on getting the person baptized (which, for many it has been), then your post would make a valid analogy.

Actually, I had the opportunity to attend a meeting with my companion for the Arizona missions, which included Phoenix, Mesa, Tempe and Tucson. All four missions had been instructed by the First Presidency and the Twelve to focus on learning how to extend and frequently focus on a first lesson baptismal invitation. The next thing we were to focus on in the subsequent lessons was focusing on the teaching that baptism is our first covenant, but the goal should be the temple. We compared our statistics with the companionships sent by the other missions and the results were awesome! The number of souls entering into sacred covenants had gone up, most of those had been invited on the first lesson, our retention rate was ~80-85%, and most were getting their endowment within the first year.

The difference was the ability to focus on a spiritual conversion (testimony of the Saviour and Father, the Book of Mormon, etc) as well as a social conversion (fellowshipping from the ward, attending activities/sacrament). We then focused on using the new converts to help the missionaries teach lessons to other investigators, a member was assigned to read the entire Book of Mormon with them in the first year, and they received a simple calling.

As with a lot of things it isn't so much what you do, it's how you do it.

First lesson baptismal invites, combined with the Spirit are one of the most powerful tools in initial conversion. Focus on the continual making and renewal covenants, combined with good ward support are the most powerful tools in lasting conversion.

[KevinG]

First lesson baptismal invites, combined with the Spirit are one of the most powerful tools in initial conversion. Focus on the continual making and renewal covenants, combined with good ward support are the most powerful tools in lasting conversion.

From a purely practical aspect it also sorts out the investigators from the merely curious or those who want to debate with the Elders, leaving the missionaries more time with those who are truly finding out if they fit with Mormonism.

[Duncan]

Actually, I had the opportunity to attend a meeting with my companion for the Arizona missions, which included Phoenix, Mesa, Tempe and Tucson. All four missions had been instructed by the First Presidency and the Twelve to focus on learning how to extend and frequently focus on a first lesson baptismal invitation. The next thing we were to focus on in the subsequent lessons was focusing on the teaching that baptism is our first covenant, but the goal should be the temple. We compared our statistics with the companionships sent by the other missions and the results were awesome! The number of souls entering into sacred covenants had gone up, most of those had been invited on the first lesson, our retention rate was ~80-85%, and most were getting their endowment within the first year.

The difference was the ability to focus on a spiritual conversion (testimony of the Saviour and Father, the Book of Mormon, etc) as well as a social conversion (fellowshipping from the ward, attending activities/sacrament). We then focused on using the new converts to help the missionaries teach lessons to other investigators, a member was assigned to read the entire Book of Mormon with them in the first year, and they received a simple calling.

As with a lot of things it isn't so much what you do, it's how you do it.

First lesson baptismal invites, combined with the Spirit are one of the most powerful tools in initial conversion. Focus on the continual making and renewal covenants, combined with good ward support are the most powerful tools in lasting conversion.

do you find that people drop out but might have been interested later on?

[Calm]

I'd question the validity of a study that asks current members if they were ready for baptism earlier than they were actually baptized, seems it would be hard for some members to admit that they really didn't want to be baptized.

I don't know what the study actually asked, just the conclusion from it. I would agree that it might be problematic depending on how it was asked. My impression was that it measured the difference between those who were not asked relatively quickly and those who were rather than asking the members when they were ready. Like I said this was many years ago (during Pres. McKay's term) and they had the two options to test from. Edited September 14, 2012 by calmoriah

[Saints Alive]

Race and gender are not equivalent properties. There are real, material differences between men and women. There are not real, material differences between people with different skin color.

Their are material differences between the races and for a variety of reasons, both genetic and cultural. Those differences are about as important as gender when it comes to missionary work.

[halconero]

do you find that people drop out but might have been interested later on?

Yes and no. We found that that one depended from missionary to missionary. We found a difference between those who invited and mixed in baptism to their teachings and those who focused just on baptism and pushed it.

Example:

1) A missionary starts off the first lesson and early on says, "As we learn for ourselves what this message is, and feel the truth of it from God we desire to make promises to follow him, called covenants. The first of these is baptism."

Later on he may say "An essential part to receiving answer to this is praying and studying for yourself, which takes time. We can't teach you everything right now, nor should you take it from us that this is true. The way I've found out is through study and prayer, with a commitment to act on the answer I receive from God. That entails developing faith in Jesus Christ, striving to put our life in harmony with his teachings and when we're prepared following him by baptism into his Church. All of that though hinges on whether or not this is true, and you can find that out personally."

2) "We see this eventually leading to baptism, which is a central part of our message. As you learn you'll want to be baptized to follow Jesus Christ."

Later on, "As you learn the truth of these things yourself will you follow the example of Jesus Christ by being baptized by one holding the priesthood authority from God?"

--------------------------------------

Those missionaries who took time to explain and answer questions, but still invited didn't scare people off. In fact, people had a clearer picture and sometimes took even more time to prepare for baptism because they really wanted to be sure.

The missionaries in the second example often scared people off.

[Ahab]

I am just thinking out loud here but would people be turned off if you committed someone for a date at the first appt.? when they could have been interested if the missionaries hadn't done that and done it later? It would be like some random person coming up to you and saying you seem nice and pleasant I have received a revelation that we need to get married in 3 weeks so you get the cake and i'll get the flowers, deal? I would laugh and walk away but if they didn't say any of that and just introduced themselves to you and you got to know them over time then yeah marriage could be a possibility if it headed in that direction

Some people are very careful when making decisions about things like this, and I can understand that. I'm more of a spontaneous decision maker, though, willing to try whatever sounds like it might be a good idea, and then finding out if it is. I figure I can always change my mind later, if I really want to.

For me, I had a lot of questions when I first heard about the Church and what I was being told, but it didn't take very long to get the answers, and to find out if the answers were true. Time really isn't the issue, I don't think. It's just a matter of getting the bases covered.

You want me to do what? What does that mean?

[They explain it to me]

Sure, I think I'd like to do that.

I was ready to join the Church within a week or two after I first heard about it, and it wasn't a hard decision for me. Sure, my family didn't approve, but I had done a lot of things before that they didn't approve of, either. I did it because of what's in it for me, and if I could do it again, I would.

Edited September 14, 2012 by Ahab

[Calm]

Their are material differences between the races and for a variety of reasons, both genetic and cultural.

I would agree with the cultural, not with the genetic being important though. Physical appearance doesn't really have much to do with spiritual understanding to my view. What racial genetic qualities are you suggesting influence people's reception to missionary work?

[Freedom]

I think that asking which is better is like asking do you want your food served on a blue plate or a pink plate. They are not doing the teaching and they are not providing the message. They are just the conduit. They both have strengths and weaknesses but ultimately, if we want more effective missionaries, we should not be sending out 19 year olds. There is one big hurdle for sisters in that there are so few of them which makes very few choices for mixing up companionships. They tend to have more personality conflicts which reduces choices even further. This is a hamper to their success that is difficult to measure and to rationalize. Elders, being men, do not communicate and do not rely on relationships as much, as a result they are far more likely to get along with their companion. Big drawback is that they do not communicate to make improvements,.

[Calm]

There is one big hurdle for sisters in that there are so few of them which makes very few choices for mixing up companionships. They tend to have more personality conflicts which reduces choices even further. This is a hamper to their success that is difficult to measure and to rationalize. Elders, being men, do not communicate and do not rely on relationships as much, as a result they are far more likely to get along with their companion. Big drawback is that they do not communicate to make improvements,.

Good reason for having mixed gender long term relationships....(no I don't really want to divert this thread into the topic of SSM, just thought your comments had some interesting implications about companionships of all types).

[Sis W.]

My husband and I served 4 proselyting missions---we knew a lot of missionaries----our experience is a terrific missionary is a terrific missionary---and a lousy missionary is a lousy missionary--regardless of gender. The sisters on the whole were better organized--nearly always had back-up plans---Elders always seemed a bit surprised if no one answered the door---and my dh would remind him that much of what missionaries do is visit people that aren't home---while sisters would be calling the next contact on their list. Sisters were more mature and most of them really wanted to serve---but we served with a few elders who were older and they were great---and sister cry---otoh--I never had to yell at sisters for climbing up on the Christus.

[The Nehor]

Warning, Nehor: you’ve hit a couple of my pet peeves.

I HATED this analysis when I was a sister missionary. It was almost always from elders or RM’s who were guys. I remember the advise of not being one of those “crazy sisters” all the time when I was about to leave and was worried. What I found when I was in the field was very different from what the guys described. What was more common was that 1 or 2 sisters spoiled the whole bunch in the eyes of many elders. For example, one elder had to have his faith “restored in sisters” by a phenomenal sister missionary when a single sister months before had been a complete wreck. Most sisters were average. A few were amazing. A couple had some serious problems. What really happened is a common phenomenon with any small minority groups: stereotypes based on the extremes.

Again, no….it’s more like the extreme cases are going to be heard more. Sisters can’t receive personal council from elders/DL’s/ZL’s. They can only talk in very basic terms. There is also often no one to work through your problems beyond you, God, and your companion. The first 6 months of my mission entailed no sisters in my entire zone. We were in many ways on our own. So when we talked to elders about companion issues, (and almost never personal ones) considering we couldn’t go into detail with them, it was usually pretty bad before we opened up and we were usually downplaying it, by keeping it general and trying to avoid things that are too personal. We often could not have the various tools that elders had to deal with it.

Another issue was simply that some elders didn’t know how to talk with sisters. The means that they communicated could often be ineffective for sisters.

With luv,

BD

The first person to tell me this was true was a sister missionary. Later investigations showed that most elders and sisters thought it was true. In fact you are the first sister to say it is not correct that I have ever met out of a sample size of about two dozen.

[MorningStar]

We have had some sister missionaries for the past couple of months, and they have been doing a phenomal job of bringing in investigators, and reactivating inactives. Almose every Sunday they bring in some investigators. They have also brought to Church several long time inactives, although none of them has stayed so far. But they are definitely bringing them in. We have never had elder missionaries being as effective as these sisters have been. So do sister missionaries generally make better missionaries than the elders?

--Case for giving the priesthood to women!

Why? Do you think we don't have the priesthood because we're considered incapable? Huh? Huh?

[BlueDreams]

The first person to tell me this was true was a sister missionary. Later investigations showed that most elders and sisters thought it was true. In fact you are the first sister to say it is not correct that I have ever met out of a sample size of about two dozen.

Two dozen isn't exactly a large sample size. I'm just explaining what I found on my mission and why I came to hate that stereotype. I had hard companionships that took work. I had easy companionships and I had some amazing companionships. I went well over a year (6 comapanions) before my bubble was burst about sisters not wanting to be there and not generally working hard. Not all of those 6 were easy companionships, two were strained. One was so bad that when we were doing better she asked me how I felt and I told her I felt like someone had carved half my soul out with a butter knife...and she agreed. But all of us worked hard, we knew we were supposed to be there, rarely used the elders...we did talk a bit on the phone at night with the elders but I can't think of one time it was to gripe. The whole "shoot I'm not married, better go on a mission" I never heard as a main reason. All but 2 of my companions had had romantic interests or love lifes before their missions (these two weren't the ones that didn't want to be there). The 2 companions at the end were the struggling sisters. One was super homesick, new, had to deal with failed expectations (she told me before her mish she kinda had the idea mission life was like an extended EFY), and I wasn't too pleased with how she was trained on some thinhgs. The second was homesick, her gramps that she was extremely close to had just died (litterally the day before I became her companion), had issues with anxiety and self-esteem, was suffering from severe culture shock, and had come on a mission extremely reluctantly (God said so)....all this and we were opening a new area. (The last 2 were also some of my favorite companionships.)

I know there's crap sisters. I know there's sisters who shouldn't have been there. But they're definitely in the minority from what I saw. The explanations for sisters as either amazing or terrible, to me was way too black and white. What I found were sisters that definitely ranged (similar to how elders ranged). Even "hard" sisters were a mixed bag of good and bad and had great potential to grow. I didn't have a 50/50 shot. I can't think of one companionship that I wouldn't consider successful in some way. Even when it entailed teaching around 10 lessons a week (that was really bad for me, numbers wise)....in fact I consider it one of my most successful and rewarding.

Basically I believe this idea became almost self-perpetuating. You see what you expect. And is bolstered by a poor idea of what constitutes success on a mission.

With luv,

BD

Edited September 15, 2012 by BlueDreams

[Saints Alive]

What racial genetic qualities are you suggesting influence people's reception to missionary work?

I'm not suggesting they do just that they exist and that like sex they make no difference in how effective a missionary is.

[Calm]

How did I manage to read that the opposite of what you meant, lol. Thanks for the correction.

[halconero]

My husband and I served 4 proselyting missions---we knew a lot of missionaries----our experience is a terrific missionary is a terrific missionary---and a lousy missionary is a lousy missionary--regardless of gender. The sisters on the whole were better organized--nearly always had back-up plans---Elders always seemed a bit surprised if no one answered the door---and my dh would remind him that much of what missionaries do is visit people that aren't home---while sisters would be calling the next contact on their list. Sisters were more mature and most of them really wanted to serve---but we served with a few elders who were older and they were great---and sister cry---otoh--I never had to yell at sisters for climbing up on the Christus.

Really? In my mission it was weird...the English Sisters were generally pretty well organized, the Spanish (language wise, not ethnic) Sisters not so much...we did planner checks and there was nada...

[omni]

In my mission I would say that on average sister missionaries were better. That being said I felt the very best missionaries were elders. That could be due to the fact that there were many more elders than sisters so from a purely numbers perspective that would make sense. And I know that the worst and most disobedient missionaries were the elders. I attribute this to many of the elders going because they felt they had to rather than wanted to and the fact that they were younger and more immature.

[Calm]

In my mission I would say that on average sister missionaries were better. That being said I felt the very best missionaries were elders. That could be due to the fact that there were many more elders than sisters so from a purely numbers perspective that would make sense. And I know that the worst and most disobedient missionaries were the elders. I attribute this to many of the elders going because they felt they had to rather than wanted to and the fact that they were younger and more immature.

Culturally speaking among North Americans at least (where a good percentage of missionaries come from) young men tend to be more rebellious and wiling to act out then young women though this has been changing over the past decades...unfortunately not because young men are getting better, but the other way around.

[rongo]

Elders always seemed a bit surprised if no one answered the door---and my dh would remind him that much of what missionaries do is visit people that aren't home---while sisters would be calling the next contact on their list.

Was/were this/these missions in North America? The thought of a missionary, man or woman, being frozen at the prospect of someone not being home would be a foreign concept in Europe and other areas. But this has been my experience in the States, including the present, where missionaries are discouraged from doing any door-to-door at all and almost all the onus for finding is placed on members (in our area).

It's funny. When I got home from my mission (Germany Hamburg, '94-'96) I helped teach and baptize my sister's boyfriend (now sealed in the temple) and worked with the missionaries a lot (Chicagoland area). When an appointment fell out, they were "frozen" as you describe, and I suggested we knock on some doors. They were incredulous, but didn't have a back-up plan (as you describe). On the third door, we were let in and gave a copy of the Book of Mormon and had a discussion about its origins and background and made a return appointment. They were really excited about the experience, and I told them that they have lots of opportunities every day to knock on doors, especially when plans fall apart.

That was pretty much a way of life In Germany, day in and day out, for both elders and sisters.

[Sis W.]

Our first mission was Zimbabwe, Africa----most people were home--but if not you could just teach the folks next door--they loved old white people with a car to park in front of their house---once when our investigators were not home --we found some willing listeners about 3 houses down---but they insisted we pull our car right up in front of their home----the other three missions were in the States.

[mfbukowski]

Good reason for having mixed gender long term relationships....(no I don't really want to divert this thread into the topic of SSM, just thought your comments had some interesting implications about companionships of all types).

An excellent point which I think is definitely germane since we are talking about the differences between men and women.

Gosh, one might think that we were designed to compliment each other.

Nah, that's not politically correct.

[Tacenda]

I've always longed to go on a mission with my husband. Now with my testimony issues who knows? But maybe a service mission might be the ticket. I'm envious of all the missionaries on the board and the wonderful experiences they've had.