In Retrospect, Was The Raising Of The Bar A Good Thing?

[Saints Alive]

I think it is important to mention that the "raising of the bar" in most cases isn't to keep people from serving missions but to make those who want to serve rise to the standard.

[daz2]

Rongo is right. Much of the drop in missionaries was attributable to the drop in birth rates among LDS 20 years earlier.

[JAHS]

I wish the bar was higher back in the early 70's. A couple of my companions were nothing but draft dodgers who didn't really want to be there.

[David T]

Two months in a Missionary Training Center, either at the main one in Provo, Utah, or at one of a number of other locations in different parts of the world. Both men and women undergo the same training at these centers.

As Duncan mentioned, there is a standard missionary guide called Preach My Gospel from which all missionaries, male and female, old and young, are trained. You can view a PDF copy at this link.

Those who will be teaching in their own language currently have 3 weeks, not months, in the MTC. For those learning a standard language, it is a couple months, with an additional couple weeks for those learning a particularly more difficult language, like Chinese, Japanese, or even Russian I think (I think the need to begin learning to read a new character set plays into those).

It was announced this past Saturday that in-MTC training will be cut by 1/3 - this will be me standard English speaking missions 2 weeks in the MTC. They have been transitioning recently away from a focus on teaching the lessons/doctrine in the MTC, to focusing how to teach.

There is a 12-week (2 transfer) in-field follow-up training course in place in the Missions proper.

Now, the new Youth Curriculum will serve as an extended period of teaching and identifying with the exact doctrines and lesson material taught in Preach my Gospel, so it may be viewed as a proto/at-home MTC experience.

The MTC is now positioned to be more of an extremely brief waystation. Which is pretty fantastic, IMO.

Edited October 10, 2012 by David T

[Closet Doubter]

Two sons returned from missions in Central America within the past 14 months. One was an AP so he was able to see what was happening throughout the mission. Both report there are major problems with many of the missionaries from the local countries. The bar apparently still needs to be raised further.

They report in both their missions a problem with native missionaries forming groups they call the gadiantons (I'm not making this up, happened both in Mexico and in Guatemala). These missionaries have organized rule braking where they go to night clubs, on dates, etc. The mission president is not allowed to send them home unless they actually have sex because if they get sent home they completely leave the church but if they can make it through their missions they will go home and mostly remain active.

Sometimes the disobedience carries over into the US born missionaries but for the most part the US missionaries follow mission rules. For many of the native missionaries, they are living better then they ever have in their lives. They receive the same amount of money that the US missionaries receive (which is absolutely correct) and the mission is the first time in their lives they have money to spend. The mission becomes a paid vacation and if they complete it, they can benefit from the education fund the Church has established. Dedication to the Church is only a minor consideration for many of them from what it sounds like. There are also many native missionaries that are dedicated. My son's roport that the missionaries from Mexica seem to be the better missionaries, and the ones from Nicaragua and to a lesser extent Guatemala seem to be the ones that are the most problematic.

[David T]

You would expect that "better prepared" missionaries would baptize more converts. But that does not appear to be borne out by the data.

Actually, I would expect better prepared missionaries to baptize just as many - if not a little less - but to have those converts come in with a stronger foundation and understanding, and to have had the Missionaries work more with the Ward, and thus have a stronger chance of the individual being retained. At least in my stake, we have seen this to be accurate.

Edited October 10, 2012 by David T

[Duncan]

I have seen less missionaries go out from here, more sisters though then in the past but I don't know what to attribute it all to. I just was talking with a guy who served in France about 10 years ago, totally inactive and our stake has too, too many inactive RMs.

[Cobalt-70]

This also isn't taking into effect the overall change in not only raising the bard but PMG and a focus over retention. Most missions now have far more stringent qualifications for baptism. I was always astounded of hearing cases where a person got baptized within a week or two (or even a day). For us (in my mission) the fastest someone could get baptized was around a month to 6 weeks.

I'd like to see the actual statistics on retention, if the LDS Church would release them. I'm a bit skeptical that the retention rate has made any dramatic improvements over the last decade. But I think any effort, successful or not, to try to stop the hemorrhaging is a good thing. Somebody at church headquarters ought to be assigned to study the Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-Day Aventists, who are much more successful at retention than we are, and their conversion rates are also higher than ours.

[rongo]

Actually, I would expect better prepared missionaries to baptize just as many - if not a little less - but to have those converts come in with a stronger foundation and understanding, and to have had the Missionaries work more with the Ward, and thus have a stronger chance of the individual being retained. At least in my stake, we have seen this to be accurate.

Have you seen big gains in retention in your stake? My experience (bishop, counselor x2, WML x2, EQP x2) in Utah, Arizona, Illinois (Chicago area), and northern Germany (mid 1990s) is that retention is really tough, regardless of the programs and approaches. I think this is largely due to the mix of people on the earth at this time, and not to deficiencies in how they were taught or prepared, or deficiencies in fellowshipping/friendshipping. I have *never* been in a ward or branch that did not strive to welcome and include investigators and converts, and yet the majority of them (no matter what we do) go inactive fairly quickly. I don't think this has been different at other eras (cf. Christ's parables, which often give the expectation that this will be the case).

The Lord's church is demanding and exacting, and many people who receive it gladly aren't up to the service and commitment demands.

[rongo]

I'd like to see the actual statistics on retention, if the LDS Church would release them. I'm a bit skeptical that the retention rate has made any dramatic improvements over the last decade. But I think any effort, successful or not, to try to stop the hemorrhaging is a good thing. Somebody at church headquarters ought to be assigned to study the Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-Day Aventists, who are much more successful at retention than we are, and their conversion rates are also higher than ours.

Baloney. They have even worse retention than we do, in my experience. I've met loads of inactive or shunned members, some for refusing to stop wearing a Depeche Mode T-shirt, for instance.

David Stewart's research and book, while excellent in many regards, gave much too glowing of a nod to SDA and JW retention and activity rates compared to LDS, in my view. They have the same problem we do: demanding churches with high expectations of service and commitment.

[David T]

Have you seen big gains in retention in your stake? My experience (bishop, counselor x2, WML x2, EQP x2) in Utah, Arizona, Illinois (Chicago area), and northern Germany (mid 1990s) is that retention is really tough, regardless of the programs and approaches. I think this is largely due to the mix of people on the earth at this time, and not to deficiencies in how they were taught or prepared, or deficiencies in fellowshipping/friendshipping. I have *never* been in a ward or branch that did not strive to welcome and include investigators and converts, and yet the majority of them (no matter what we do) go inactive fairly quickly. I don't think this has been different at other eras (cf. Christ's parables, which often give the expectation that this will be the case).

The Lord's church is demanding and exacting, and many people who receive it gladly aren't up to the service and commitment demands.

I have. I currently serve as the High Councilor assigned to Missionary Work in my Stake. (I'll be meeting with the MP and the SP tonight, actually. We meet every month.) Every 6 months, I oversee a detailed ward-by-ward inventory of everyone baptized in the last few years who still reside in the stake, and take note of their progress, activity, if they're still attending sacrament meeting regularly, potential practical reasons for inactivity, etc. Our stake is very good with retention, but even still the numbers have been rising. (Our SP is very much not a fan of 'programs',) - we've also noticed along side this a definite increase in quality of the service from the full-time Missionaries.

[rongo]

What is your retention percentage, and out of how many converts year-to-date or last year?

[cinepro]

Baloney. They have even worse retention than we do, in my experience. I've met loads of inactive or shunned members, some for refusing to stop wearing a Depeche Mode T-shirt, for instance.

Seriously? I've heard that t-shirt story before, but it turned out to be nothing more than a rumor. A blasphemous rumor.

Edited October 10, 2012 by cinepro

[rongo]

Seriously? I've heard that t-shirt story before, but it turned out to be nothing more than a rumor. A blasphemous rumor.

The T-shirt thing happened to me. We knocked on a 20-something lady's door in Halberstadt, Germany, and she let us in. She was hard to teach, as are many JWs, because even when "gone" from the church, many find it hard not to think like one. She told us that she had been shunned and banned because she refused to stop wearing a DM shirt.

I suppose she could have been lying to us or mistaken, but the only way I could have better knowledge of the situation would have been to quiz the church elders myself.

As a high school/junior high teacher, *every* single one of my students who is a JW has been "inactive" (i.e., not living up to church standards, not a regular attendee, etc.). This has been at three different schools in two different cities.

I am skeptical that they have super-high activity and retention rates.

[Cobalt-70]

Baloney. They have even worse retention than we do, in my experience. I've met loads of inactive or shunned members, some for refusing to stop wearing a Depeche Mode T-shirt, for instance.

David Stewart's research and book, while excellent in many regards, gave much too glowing of a nod to SDA and JW retention and activity rates compared to LDS, in my view. They have the same problem we do: demanding churches with high expectations of service and commitment.

Sociologists say that high-demand churches (i.e., churches like us, the JWs and the SDAs) have a strong survival advantage over other churches (like Episcopalians, Methodists, etc.) because increased demand and tension with the surrounding culture increases the perceived value of membership. Plus, the membership is more motivated by fear of temporal or eternal discipline. So I don't see that as a "problem." The problem is that we even though we are just as high-demand as the JWs and the SDAs, we aren't as effective as they are in proselyting and retaining members.

[rongo]

Sociologists say that high-demand churches (i.e., churches like us, the JWs and the SDAs) have a strong survival advantage over other churches (like Episcopalians, Methodists, etc.) because increased demand and tension with the surrounding culture increases the perceived value of membership. Plus, the membership is more motivated by fear of temporal or eternal discipline. So I don't see that as a "problem." The problem is that we even though we are just as high-demand as the JWs and the SDAs, we aren't as effective as they are in proselyting and retaining members.

Agreed that demanding churches have better survival and thriving value, but don't agree that SDA and JW are more effective than we are "in proselyting and retaining members." Any CFRs that people (not just you, Cobalt) can kick in here would be appreciated.

[David T]

What is your retention percentage, and out of how many converts year-to-date or last year?

76% knowable (still residing in stake) retention over past 3 years, with current YTD baptisms (end of Sept) being 47, with last 3 years end-of-year being respectively 56, 62, and 68.

Edited October 10, 2012 by David T

[rongo]

Thanks, David! We'd be happy with even 56% . . .

[Cobalt-70]

Actually, I would expect better prepared missionaries to baptize just as many - if not a little less - but to have those converts come in with a stronger foundation and understanding, and to have had the Missionaries work more with the Ward, and thus have a stronger chance of the individual being retained. At least in my stake, we have seen this to be accurate.

These factors sound more like a matter of the missionaries' people skills, rather than their strictness, worthiness, or scripture knowledge. The problem is that we don't keep missionaries in any given area for very long, so missionaries play almost a zero factor in long-term retention, except to the extent that they have the social skills to effectively engage members to be their friends.

[Judd]

Seriously? I've heard that t-shirt story before, but it turned out to be nothing more than a rumor. A blasphemous rumor.

God has a sick sense of humor.

[thesometimesaint]

Yes.

[Cobalt-70]

The T-shirt thing happened to me. We knocked on a 20-something lady's door in Halberstadt, Germany, and she let us in. She was hard to teach, as are many JWs, because even when "gone" from the church, many find it hard not to think like one. She told us that she had been shunned and banned because she refused to stop wearing a DM shirt.

I suppose she could have been lying to us or mistaken, but the only way I could have better knowledge of the situation would have been to quiz the church elders myself.

That seems strange to us, but we have to remember that we, too, excommunicate and/or disfellowship members for things that might seem trivial to the outside world. We don't officially shun, but the effect is often the same. We are at least as high-demand of a church as the JWs are, and there is probably more tension with the outside world. That should give us a proselytizing advantage, but the JWs cream us in growth.

I think part of the reason is our proselytizing approach, which is probably inferior. Another big reason is that the LDS Church focusing on industrialized or industrializing countries, rather than in places like Africa where the SDAs are kicking butt. But another reason, affecting us since the mid-90s, might be the fact that we have not yet taken ownership of our own weird history. So when new members learn about it, they are not prepared and feel they have been deceived.

Edited October 10, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[halconero]

These factors sound more like a matter of the missionaries' people skills, rather than their strictness, worthiness, or scripture knowledge. The problem is that we don't keep missionaries in any given area for very long, so missionaries play almost a zero factor in long-term retention, except to the extent that they have the social skills to effectively engage members to be their friends.

I can state the following as fact, as my companion and I helped transition in a new mission president in Phoenix and he showed us the videos from the mission presidents' seminar.

President Monson told mission presidents to try and keep missionaries in their areas for at least 9 months. The longer an effective, obedient missionary was in an area the higher the retention rate, the more converts were baptized and the more trust the ward gained with missionaries.

My two most effective areas on the mission were my first and second-to-last where I spent 7 1/2 months in each. I knew the members well, I knew the area geographically and demographically, I had a good relationship with the recent converts.

Our mission started shifting to longer areas. There were some sisters and elders that were in their areas for up to 13-14 months and those were some of the best in the mission.

[MiserereNobis]

But another reason, affecting us since the mid-90s, might be the fact that we have not yet taken ownership of our own weird history. So when new members learn about it, they are not prepared and feel they have been deceived.

I'm not sure how that affects new LDS members, but I will chime in and say that, from an outsider's perspective, it does appear that the LDS church, or at least its members, have not, as you say, taken ownership of the past. I advocate for all of you a full embrace of your history and beliefs, especially those that appear strange to outsiders. By dodging or downplaying you are only playing into your critics hands.

As far as doctrine is concerned, I think the King Follet Discourse is the prime example. Almost every Mormon I've talked to about it believes it personally and it appears to be deeply ingrained in the Mormon mind, yet many people (this board has loads of examples of this) when confronted with the huge disconnect of the doctrine with Christianity disavow it as not being doctrinal or as only being speculation. To an outsider, this seems like wiggling out of a loophole, since, as I said before, most Mormons believe it. It also makes it appear as if Mormons are somehow embarrassed of the doctrine to outsiders, while openly accepting it with insiders. And again, this plays right into your critics hands, especially to their claim that you hide things from potential converts.

Just my admittedly limited observations.

[Scott Lloyd]

As far as doctrine is concerned, I think the King Follet Discourse is the prime example. Almost every Mormon I've talked to about it believes it personally and it appears to be deeply ingrained in the Mormon mind, yet many people (this board has loads of examples of this) when confronted with the huge disconnect of the doctrine with Christianity disavow it as not being doctrinal or as only being speculation. To an outsider, this seems like wiggling out of a loophole, since, as I said before, most Mormons believe it. It also makes it appear as if Mormons are somehow embarrassed of the doctrine to outsiders, while openly accepting it with insiders. And again, this plays right into your critics hands, especially to their claim that you hide things from potential converts.

So we can determine if we are all on the same page, would you give us a concise summary of what you understand the doctrine in the King Follet discourse to be?

Edited October 10, 2012 by Scott Lloyd