100,000 Missionaries By 2019 - Elder Holland

[Avatar4321]

Well, the statistics tell us that he isn't. Or more likely, that there are just not that many people who are elect. Perhaps I am a bit pessimistic, but the baptisms and retention  in BC, Alberta and Washington state have gone down. absolute numbers of baptisms are up, but not as much as there are missionaries. Maybe we just need time to adjust.

Or perhaps we just need to have faith and get to work instead of doubting and explaining why something can't happen.

If our enemies leave us alone we will convert the world. If they don't we will do it faster. This is the work of the Lord and He will give us tremendous success

[Scott Lloyd]

People forget (or don't consider) the eternal principle of agency. God can prepare people all He wants, but He will never override their agency. And, our missionary work goals can never override people's agency, no matter how much faith we have.

But the missionary work can in some measure lead them to a more informed exercise of agency.

Many today are inhibited in their exercise of agency because of the prophesied influence of the church of the devil and because they have been "blinded by the craftiness of men," to put it in scriptural terms. Missionary work (and, I would add, apologetics, to a degree) serves to counter that evil influence.

So, let the "armies of Helaman" increase, say I, and let's not fret about where we're going to put them or how we're going to keep them busy. Let's employ a variety of methods and approaches as we keep our eye on the goal.

As I said in the hymn verse I just wrote (see the "Perfect Hymn" thread):

Rise up O saints of God.

His marv'lous work has begun.

Take on the strength of Zion's cause,

And with our Lord be one.

© R. Scott Lloyd 2015, all rights reserved.

Edited March 7, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Freedom]

Surely there is an optimum number of missionaries a given ward can use effectively. Is it 12? 30? 300? More does not mean better. What we are finding is that the members are overwhelmed with the number of missionaries and they not able to forge relationships of trust with them. Missionaries are competing for dinner appointments, spiritual thoughts and referrals. More missionaries is causing the members to pull away from sensory overload. 

[omni]

People forget (or don't consider) the eternal principle of agency. God can prepare people all He wants, but He will never override their agency. And, our missionary work goals can never override people's agency, no matter how much faith we have.

I think there's something more at play here. As missionaries we were constantly told by MTC teachers, visiting GA's and most of all our mission president that if we were obedient we would be led by the Spirit to the elect who were ready to be baptized. The first year of my mission we baptized 75 people. When I say "we" I'm referring to the entire mission.

There were about 15-20 million people living within our mission boundaries. There were some good, hard working and obedient missionaries in our mission, but I never heard of a companionship baptizing more than 2-3 people per year, while most were in the 0-1 range. It's hard for me to believe that out of the millions of people living in that area, only 75-100 are ready for baptism..

[Scott Lloyd]

Surely there is an optimum number of missionaries a given ward can use effectively. Is it 12? 30? 300? More does not mean better. What we are finding is that the members are overwhelmed with the number of missionaries and they not able to forge relationships of trust with them. Missionaries are competing for dinner appointments, spiritual thoughts and referrals. More missionaries is causing the members to pull away from sensory overload.

Please see my story at this link: http://m.deseretnews.com/article/865619186/Creation-of-11-new-missions-indicates-the-work-continues-apace.html

The Missionary Department says 200 missionaries per mission is optimum, and the effort is to get to that number thru creation of new missions. I think what you are describing may be growing pains. Patience is in order.

Meanwhile, each individual effort contributes to the aggregate, which succeeds through constancy to purpose. Do you think the devil ever lets up because his effort-to-success ratio is not as high as he would like?

Edited March 9, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Freedom]

Please see my story at this link: http://m.deseretnews.com/article/865619186/Creation-of-11-new-missions-indicates-the-work-continues-apace.html

The Missionary Department says 200 missionaries per mission is optimum, and the effort is to get to that number thru creation of new missions. I think what you are describing may be growing pains. Patience is in order.

Meanwhile, each individual effort contributes to the aggregate, which succeeds through constancy to purpose. Do you think the devil ever lets up because his effort to success ratio is not as high as he would like?

Well perhaps you are right. All I know is that right now, we are going a bit backwards. But perhaps we are now in the 2 steps backwards before the 3 steps forward. 

[Mike Reed]

On the other hand, we have Mike Reed predicting that the number of missionaries will fall "within the next two or three years."

 

Although, when I pressed him, he said he didn't know how far it would fall.

 

By the way, I have a clock running on Mike's prediction. As of this moment, there are 1 year, 10 months, 5 days, 5 hours 13 minutes and 20 seconds left to go in his predicted two-year span.

 

Ill be sure to revisit this on Monday, Jan. 9, 2017, when the two years are up.

Oh great.  You'll be able to confirm whether or not my prediction is correct.  Looking forward to it, and I'm honored that you find my message board comments so worthy of resurrecting.  You may also remember that I said that our biggest concern should be the problem of missionaries returning home early.  If I didn't mention it in this linked thread, I know I did elsewhere... that I believe this problem, as it becomes more and more familiar to the youth in their own wards, will cause some prospective missionaries to decide not to go.  That is... that the old notion that struggling youth should go, and find/strengthen their testimony while in the field, will seem too risky for some (more than before).  I have also posted remarks on fb that the Church might succeed in achieving this number, but that they would need to make more changes to the program first.  I suggest that they can achieve this if they do two of four options: 1) Expand internet missionary work (allowing some to serve from home), 2) Expand non-proselytizing missions and make it an explicit choice to applicants, 3) "Lower the bar" of worthiness, when it comes to problems of masterbation (aka. "self abuse"), and/or 4) Lower the age for eligible sisters to 18 (equal to elders).  Other factors can cause an increase in numbers, of course... maybe the Brethren can start emphasizing the importance of sisters to serve (maybe even say they, like Elders, are called to the work).  But... if no significant changes/shifts like these occur... yes... I'd expect the numbers to continue to fall.  I look forward to you  announcing whether I am correct in my prediction.  Will you announce it if I am correct?  Or will you only do so if I am wrong?

Edited March 8, 2015 by Mike Reed

[Scott Lloyd]

Oh great.  You'll be able to confirm whether or not my prediction is correct.  Looking forward to it, and I'm honored that you find my message board comments so worthy of resurrecting.  You may also remember that I said that our biggest concern should be the problem of missionaries returning home early.  If I didn't mention it in this linked thread, I know I did elsewhere... that I believe this problem, as it becomes more and more familiar to the youth in their own wards, will cause some prospective missionaries to decide not to go.  That is... that the old notion that struggling youth should go, and find/strengthen their testimony while in the field, will seem too risky for some (more than before).  I have also posted remarks on fb that the Church might succeed in achieving this number, but that they would need to make more changes to the program first.  I suggest that they can achieve this if they do two of four options: 1) Expand internet missionary work (allowing some to serve from home), 2) Expand non-proselytizing missions and make it an explicit choice to applicants, 3) "Lower the bar" of worthiness, when it comes to problems of masterbation (aka. "self abuse"), and/or 4) Lower the age for eligible sisters to 18 (equal to elders).  Other factors can cause an increase in numbers, of course... maybe the Brethren can start emphasizing the importance of sisters to serve (maybe even say they, like Elders, are called to the work).  But... if no significant changes/shifts like these occur... yes... I'd expect the numbers to continue to fall.  I look forward to you  announcing whether I am correct in my prediction.  Will you announce it if I am correct?  Or will you only do so if I am wrong?

I'll do it either way, of course.

But you'll have to give a far better definition of your meaning. Drop by how much and from what benchmark? Are you saying it will go back down to the pre-surge total of below 60,000? Or do you mean it will fall below 84,728, which is what it was two months ago when you made your ill-defined prediction?

And how are you going to verify what you predict: that the Church has kept the numbers high by lowering worthiness standards or dumbing down what it means to be a missionary? Sounds to me like you are setting the stage for rationalization.

But I'll do better than what I've said. At the end of two years, when I revisit this, I'll give you a year's grace period, since you said "two or three years."

Meanwhile, here's a current clock reading: 1 year, 10 months, 1 day, 3 hours, 24 minutes, 14 seconds and counting down.

Edited March 8, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[cinepro]

On the other hand, we have Mike Reed predicting that the number of missionaries will fall "within the next two or three years."

 

Although, when I pressed him, he said he didn't know how far it would fall.

 

By the way, I have a clock running on Mike's prediction. As of this moment, there are 1 year, 10 months, 5 days, 5 hours 13 minutes and 20 seconds left to go in his predicted two-year span.

 

Ill be sure to revisit this on Monday, Jan. 9, 2017, when the two years are up.

 

For the record, this is Mike's "prediction" over which he is now being nailed to the wall:

 

I suspect that we are still in the wake of the recent age change. In two or three more years it will fall, I suspect, unless another change is made (ie.Internet missions served from home, or a push to expand non-proselytizing service missions).

 

Notice that Mike didn't use the word "predict" at all in the comment, but he says "suspect" twice.  But somehow in the transition from his statement to Scott's challenge, it changed from a "suspicion" to a "prediction".  How did that happen?  How does someone "suspecting" something suddenly magically turn into a prediction upon which the person's entire credibility suddenly seems to hinge?

 

Of course, Reed got off a lot easier than John Dehlin did, where Scott took a prediction (or "projection" as Scott himself frames it in the OP) and then goes on to call it a "false prophecy" a full 40 years before the time in which the prediction would even be falsified.  I'm not even sure how it's possible for a prediction about something 40 years in the future to be a false prophecy now.

 

With all due respect Scott, if you held LDS Prophets (especially Joseph Smith) to anything near that same standard you would have left the Church a long time ago. 

[BCSpace]

Apparently Elder Holland predicted 100,000 missionaries serving by 2019...

 

http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/2249417-155/lds-apostle-jeffrey-r-holland-predicts

 

Did he predict or did he project from the data?

[rockpond]

Did he predict or did he project from the data?

I'm not sure what meaningful difference there is between his predicting or projecting.

I'm certainly not viewing it as a prophecy, if that's what you're asking.

[Scott Lloyd]

For the record, this is Mike's "prediction" over which he is now being nailed to the wall:

 

 

 

 

Notice that Mike didn't use the word "predict" at all in the comment, but he says "suspect" twice.  But somehow in the transition from his statement to Scott's challenge, it changed from a "suspicion" to a "prediction".  How did that happen?  How does someone "suspecting" something suddenly magically turn into a prediction upon which the person's entire credibility suddenly seems to hinge?

 

Of course, Reed got off a lot easier than John Dehlin did, where Scott took a prediction (or "projection" as Scott himself frames it in the OP) and then goes on to call it a "false prophecy" a full 40 years before the time in which the prediction would even be falsified.  I'm not even sure how it's possible for a prediction about something 40 years in the future to be a false prophecy now.

 

With all due respect Scott, if you held LDS Prophets (especially Joseph Smith) to anything near that same standard you would have left the Church a long time ago. 

Prediction, suspicion, it's a matter of semantics. Mike is standing by it, whatever you call it. I'm not nailing anyone, just tracking his degree of prescience. I said I'm doing the same with Elder Holland's projection. Do you think I'm "nailing" him?

And when I called Dehlin's prediction a false prophecy, it was a tongue-in-cheek attention-getter in a thread title. I never called it that in the thread, and I think I made that point in the thread. Surely you understand tongue-in-cheek; you engage in it all the time.

But the clock is running on Dehlin's prediction. Do you want to know the current reading? I'll get it for you momentarily as I check my app.

Time left before the Church is expected to succumb to public pressure to embrace illicit sexual behavior and begin to solemnize it in the temple: 39 years, 11 months, 1 day, 20 hours, 35 minutes, 15 seconds and counting down.

Just think: It was nearly 40 years ago that the ERA protestors were yelling out in general conference. Time flies on wings of lightning, as the song says.

Edited March 9, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I'm sorry, but what in the world could make Elder Holland think we'd hit 100,000 missionaries by December 2019?  Has anyone checked the birth-of-records back in 2000 - 2001 to see if there was a sudden surge in births that would indicate anything like that happening?

 

Because unless they make a drastic change to how they define "missionary", that just seems really...optimistic.

 

Kent Larsen at Times and Seasons keeps a google spreadsheet with all the church released numbers. The following is the number of "Children of Record" for the corresponding year:

 

1997 - 75,241

1998 - 76,829

1999 - 84,188

2000 - 81,450

2001 - 69,522

2002 - 81,132

2003 - 99,457

2004 - 98,870

 

The missionaries currently serving were most likely born in the years between 1994 - 1996. Unfortunately in years prior to 1997, they reported on # of 8 year old's baptized instead of the increase in the children of record, so there is a gap in the data. Based on the wide variation in these numbers, if Elder Holland says 100,000 in 2019, he probably knows what he is talking about.

[stemelbow]

Kent Larsen at Times and Seasons keeps a google spreadsheet with all the church released numbers. The following is the number of "Children of Record" for the corresponding year:

 

1997 - 75,241

1998 - 76,829

1999 - 84,188

2000 - 81,450

2001 - 69,522

2002 - 81,132

2003 - 99,457

2004 - 98,870

 

The missionaries currently serving were most likely born in the years between 1994 - 1996. Unfortunately in years prior to 1997, they reported on # of 8 year old's baptized instead of the increase in the children of record, so there is a gap in the data. Based on the wide variation in these numbers, if Elder Holland says 100,000 in 2019, he probably knows what he is talking about.

Very interesting. For the years 1999-2000 there was a significant increase it looks like. Sadly in 2001 there was a even more significant drop. But explosion came around 2003. As I said earlier in the thread I left in 1995 on my mission and the number of missionaries serving from when I left to when I returned increased significantly. it was, as I recall, a big deal back then. That steep increase over those two years was big. As it most likely turns out, many of my era missionaries started having children late 90s early 2000s. hmmm..

[Scott Lloyd]

of course, but it would have to be seen as learning the way of obedience and submission to an authority one chooses, a path of self determination which includes cleansing rituals, basic changes to lifestyle, allowing one to correct ones mistakes and forgiveness.

Such a path requires discipline and order, meditation and prayer, and the reward is having the universe open itself before you.

Does that sound secular enough to sell and at least hit some of your requirements?

If you can sell that -- and win real converts in the process -- more power to you.

I'll write your biography: M. F. Bukowski, Missionary to the Secularists

Edited March 10, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Duncan]

Kent Larsen at Times and Seasons keeps a google spreadsheet with all the church released numbers. The following is the number of "Children of Record" for the corresponding year:

 

1997 - 75,241

1998 - 76,829

1999 - 84,188

2000 - 81,450

2001 - 69,522

2002 - 81,132

2003 - 99,457

2004 - 98,870

 

The missionaries currently serving were most likely born in the years between 1994 - 1996. Unfortunately in years prior to 1997, they reported on # of 8 year old's baptized instead of the increase in the children of record, so there is a gap in the data. Based on the wide variation in these numbers, if Elder Holland says 100,000 in 2019, he probably knows what he is talking about.

 

 

one thing to to consider is converts are going on missions (we have an elder here from Illinois who got baptized in Nov. 2013) and we had a sister here last year who was born in 1988 so "older" people are serving as well

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm not sure what meaningful difference there is between his predicting or projecting.

I'm certainly not viewing it as a prophecy, if that's what you're asking.

Take that up with cinepro. He's fussing about the difference between predict, project and suspect.

[rockpond]

Take that up with cinepro. He's fussing about the difference between predict, project and suspect.

 

Interesting.  I didn't realize... I haven't kept up with the thread.

[cinepro]

Take that up with cinepro. He's fussing about the difference between predict, project and suspect.

 

Really.  You find these statement to be equivalent?

 

"I suspect professional soccer will become more popular in the USA in the next 10 years."

 

"I predict professional soccer will become more popular in the USA in the next 10 years."

 

"I prophesy that professional soccer will become more popular in the USA in the next 10 years."

 

Because they're pretty dang different to me, and I would be mystified if someone presented any of them as any of the others.

 

But either way, that's fine.  I just wanted to clarify for everyone reading this thread what the actual wording was in case they, too, consider them materially different.

Edited March 9, 2015 by cinepro

[Scott Lloyd]

Really.  You find these statement to be equivalent?

 

"I suspect professional soccer will become more popular in the USA in the next 10 years."

 

"I predict professional soccer will become more popular in the USA in the next 10 years."

 

"I prophesy that professional soccer will become more popular in the USA in the next 10 years."

 

Because they're pretty dang different to me, and I would be mystified if someone presented any of them as any of the others.

 

But either way, that's fine.  I just wanted to clarify for everyone reading this thread what the actual wording was in case they, too, consider them materially different.

I've already affirmed that my phrase "false prophecy" pertaining to Dehlin's contention was a tongue-in-cheek attention-getter used one time in a thread title and nowhere else in the thread by me. He seems to have a pretty strong conviction, though, that illicit sex will one day be embraced and sanctified by the Church of Jesus Christ.

 

As for predict and project, I see very little if any difference in meaning between them in this context.

 

And, you know, language is an interesting thing. One can say, "I suspect" and come across as being rather casual in his expression. But if, when pressed on it, he continues to insist on, elaborate on and stand by it, his expression seems more and more to be in the nature of a prediction.

 

But in any case, Mike is now on record, and we'll see what happens.

 

By the way, the clock now stands at 1 year, 10 months, 4 hours, 40 minutes and 10 seconds and counting down.

 

Edited to add:

 

The Dehlin deadline, much further off into the future, is at 39 years, 11 months, 1 day, 4 hours, 47 minutes, 4 seconds and counting down.

Edited March 9, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Mike Reed]

Lloyd.

 

I am quite humored by this... and flattered.  Feel free to hold my "suspicion" as a "prediction"... or a prophecy, if that's what you want to call it.  I'll let my initial post that you've resurrected (again... so flattered) stand as it is. 

As you wait for your countdown (to the second--HA!  again, so flattered)... I'll amuse myself occasionally over the fact that you accuse me of "setting the stage for rationalization", while simultaneously demanding that I make myself more clear, asking me to explain exactly what I meant (I don't expect you to see the irony).

 

That is... I will amuse myself, when I don't have more important things to do.  Your priorities are different from mine, obviously.

 

Again... I'm flattered, Lloyd.  I am flattered (and yes *humored*) that your second-by-second countdown for my suspicion (however ill-defined it may be) is such a high priority for you.

But alas... Priorities.  There's the rub. I must now leave this thread, and write my next book.

 

Toodles!

Edited April 2, 2015 by Mike Reed

[Scott Lloyd]

Lloyd.

 

I am quite humored by this... and flattered.  Feel free to hold my "suspicion" as a "prediction"... or a prophecy, if that's what you want to call it.  I'll let my initial post that you've resurrected (again... so flattered) stand as it is. 

As you wait for your countdown (to the second--HA!  again, so flattered)... I'll amuse myself occasionally over the fact that you accuse me of "setting the stage for rationalization", while simultaneously demanding that I make myself more clear, asking me to explain exactly what I meant (I don't expect you to see the irony).

 

That is... I will amuse myself, when I don't have more important things to do.  Your priorities are different from mine, obviously.

 

Again... I'm flattered, Lloyd.  I am flattered (and yes *humored*) that your second-by-second countdown for my suspicion (however ill-defined it may be) is such a high priority for you.

But alas... Priorities.  There's the rub. I must now leave this thread, and write my next book.

 

Toodles!

I'm glad our relationship has grown so warm and cordial that we are on a last-name basis with each other, Reed.

 

You are welcome to revisit this as frequently or infrequently as you like. And at any time, if you would like a countdown reading, just ask. If I'm not tied up with "more important things to do," I'll try to respond.

 

For now, the time remaining for the realization of your prediction/speculation/suspicion/projection is 1 year, 9 months, 6 days, 20 hours 17 minutes and 54 seconds.

 

P.S. I remind you that, in the absence of more specific direction, I am assuming you are expecting (suspecting, predicting, projecting, insert your verb of choice here) that the number of missionaries in the field will fall back down below 60,000, which was the number in 2012 when the surge began.

Edited April 3, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Mike Reed]

Bump for Lloyd.   http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/3450134-155/from-surge-to-slump-no-but

What does your clock say now?

[BookofMormonLuvr]

On 3/4/2015 at 5:44 PM, JLHPROF said:

Bye Bye suits and nametags.  Hello workclothes!

That's how Ammon did it.

[Scott Lloyd]

Before responding to Mike's post let me do a

THREAD NECROMANCY ALERT!