100,000 Missionaries By 2019 - Elder Holland

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Mike Reed said:

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

What does your clock say now?

As I write this, it stands at 11 months, 2 weeks, 3 days, 7  hours, 19 minutes and 20 seconds.

So you have just under a year for your prognostication to reach fulfillment, or about two years if we give you a year-long grace period (you did say "in two or three more years").

By way of review, the number of missionaries was well under 60,000 in 2012, when the age changes were announced. The surge peaked at around 89,000, then, as predicted, dropped back down. It was between 85,000 and 86,000 a year ago, a decrease that was far less than had been anticipated by the Missionary Department for that point in time.

Colleagues of mine who covered the recent seminar for new MTC presidents and directors of visitors centers and historic sites, tell  me it was noted at that seminar that the decrease from the surge has leveled out at 75,000 (corroborated in your link by Eric Hawkins, who said it is now on a "steady, upward trend"), which means it probably won't drop back town to the pre-surge level of 58,000 to 60,000, which I have assumed all along is what you meant when you said, " In two or three more years it will fall, I suspect, unless another change is made...." although, when pressed, you refused to be more precise.

From your link:

 

Quote

 

The researcher, a project manager for the Cumorah Foundation, envisions "a return to steady increases in the number of full-time missionaries serving comparable to the early 2010s."

If that happens, he said, the church "appears likely to exceed 80,000 missionaries within the next one to two years and 90,000 missionaries by 2021."

 

 

 

 

If that happens, by the time your clock runs out, the number will be back up to nearly what it was when I started the clock.

I also noted this from the link:

 

Quote

 

It's all part of a cycle, LDS Church spokesman Eric Hawkins said Friday. The number of missionaries "does change seasonally."

"There was a peak following the age change, and — as expected — it tapered off a bit after that and then began to climb again," Hawkins said in a statement. "It's now on a steady upward trend, with seasonal peaks expected based on the school year, etc."

 

 

 

 

This is consistent with my own experience. If our son hadn't still been in high school when he reached his 18th birthday just over a year ago, he would have been ready for missionary service by then. As it happened, he was obliged to finish school before receiving his mission call and eventually departing in mid-September of last year. So he was already 18 1/2 before departing, despite the change in age for missionary eligibility.Young men who turn 18 in the summer, on the other hand, can present themselves for missionary service immediately.

I was going to revisit this anyway. Thanks for giving me the opportunity, Mike (or, as we now seem to be on a cordial, last-name basis, Reed).

Now you can get back to your book writing until we revisit this in about a year from now.

 

Edited January 23, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[CV75]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

As I write this, it stands at 11 months, 2 weeks, 3 days, 7  hours, 19 minutes and 20 seconds.

Why would the article report that late 2012 through 2014 constitutes "several years?"

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Why would the article report that late 2012 through 2014 constitutes "several years?"

I dunno. You'll have to ask Peggy that.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I dunno. You'll have to ask Peggy that.

It just struck me as some kind of bias for hyperbole in reporting.

[Russell C McGregor]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

It just struck me as some kind of bias for hyperbole in reporting.

"Hyperbole?"

The beginning of 2012 to the end of 2014 is 3 years, which qualifies (although perhaps just barely) as "several." That's not hyperbole.

Hyperbole is when that span of time is referred to as "ages and ages" or "time out of mind" or "an epoch" or something of that sort.

 

[CV75]

10 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

"Hyperbole?"

The beginning of 2012 to the end of 2014 is 3 years, which qualifies (although perhaps just barely) as "several." That's not hyperbole.

Hyperbole is when that span of time is referred to as "ages and ages" or "time out of mind" or "an epoch" or something of that sort.

Oh yes I miscalculated. What about late 2012, per the article -- 27 months or less?

I still think we can make the case for several years there, too. And 2012 was a leap year, so we can surmise that it really overlapped two solar years, and possibly three if observed from one of the outer planets of the solar system, or standing on a comet in an hyperbolic orbit. So, yes, I can see can be talking up to five years,perhaps even longer, if ever! The science proves it:

[cinepro]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

As I write this, it stands at 11 months, 2 weeks, 3 days, 7  hours, 19 minutes and 20 seconds.

So you have just under a year for your prognostication to reach fulfillment, or about two years if we give you a year-long grace period (you did say "in two or three more years").

By way of review, the number of missionaries was well under 60,000 in 2012, when the age changes were announced. The surge peaked at around 89,000, then, as predicted, dropped back down. It was between 85,000 and 86,000 a year ago, a decrease that was far less than had been anticipated by the Missionary Department for that point in time.

Colleagues of mine who covered the recent seminar for new MTC presidents and directors of visitors centers and historic sites, tell  me it was noted at that seminar that the decrease from the surge has leveled out at 75,000 (corroborated in your link by Eric Hawkins, who said it is now on a "steady, upward trend"), which means it probably won't drop back town to the pre-surge level of 58,000 to 60,000, which I have assumed all along is what you meant when you said, " In two or three more years it will fall, I suspect, unless another change is made...." although, when pressed, you refused to be more precise.

From your link:

 

If that happens, by the time your clock runs out, the number will be back up to nearly what it was when I started the clock.

I also noted this from the link:

 

This is consistent with my own experience. If our son hadn't still been in high school when he reached his 18th birthday just over a year ago, he would have been ready for missionary service by then. As it happened, he was obliged to finish school before receiving his mission call and eventually departing in mid-September of last year. So he was already 18 1/2 before departing, despite the change in age for missionary eligibility.Young men who turn 18 in the summer, on the other hand, can present themselves for missionary service immediately.

I was going to revisit this anyway. Thanks for giving me the opportunity, Mike (or, as we now seem to be on a cordial, last-name basis, Reed).

Now you can get back to your book writing until we revisit this in about a year from now.

 

All I can say is heaven help the Church if Scott ever starts paying attention to predictions made in the scriptures and by Church leaders.

[Avatar4321]

On ‎3‎/‎5‎/‎2015 at 11:18 AM, mfbukowski said:

No, it takes a major shift in what it means to be a member missionary.  We all need to learn to open our mouths.  But before that we need to learn how to teach secular people a gospel for their needs, and that is another story.

 

If your missionaries are sitting around, it is up to your ward to change that, not the missionaries.

I actually disagree with that. Not the needing to be better member missionaries part. But I think the missionaries should be doing something. If they aren't then how can the Lord trust them to send them investigators?

[Avatar4321]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

All I can say is heaven help the Church if Scott ever starts paying attention to predictions made in the scriptures and by Church leaders.

I have no doubt that he does pay attention to them. But there really aren't that many with specific time tables.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, cinepro said:

All I can say is heaven help the Church if Scott ever starts paying attention to predictions made in the scriptures and by Church leaders.

Mike (or shall I say Reed) asked; I responded. 

[Scott Lloyd]

Weird how I've gotten at least one residual rep point for something I posted nearly a year ago in this now-ancient thread. We should do necromancy more often. 

[Scott Lloyd]

50 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

I have no doubt that he does pay attention to them. But there really aren't that many with specific time tables.

Heh. Thank you. 

[salgare]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Weird how I've gotten at least one residual rep point for something I posted nearly a year ago in this now-ancient thread. We should do necromancy more often. 

Let me guess , calm?

[salgare]

I have my own prediction. After finishing cancer treatments, the standard is five years to declare one as being totally free of the cancer.  Even if the Church follows through with the last 6 months being life skills training as is currently being piloted (which will increase their odds greatly ), the percentages of return missionaries dying before five years will continue to grow.

With the recent focus on a new generation of Stripling Warriors, what will be the worse Scarlet letter for our youth,  Not meeting the expectation and not going at all, being a weak warrior and returning early or total inactivity/leaving the Church within five years of being sent to war?         

Doubt, readily available data and bad experiences are the cancer.

More important what is the Church's plan for helping those who will continue to be hurt by this last chance indoctrination policy?  Make it or throw away?

Edited January 24, 2016 by salgare

[Avatar4321]

Pretty sure 100% of rms will die eventually.  Not sure why that's relevant

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, salgare said:

Let me guess , calm?

Wrong. She is apt to know an old thread when she sees it. 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

Pretty sure 100% of rms will die eventually.  Not sure why that's relevant

He's using cancer and death to metaphorically underscore his wishful thinking that hordes of young returned missionaries will fall away within five years.

And so go the dismal prognostications. The numbers will drop back down. Or they'll come home early. Or they'll apostatize. Or the ones who don't go will be permanently scarred. 

All propaganda and talking points for the dark side. 

Edited January 24, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Avatar4321]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

He's using cancer and death to metaphorically underscore his wishful thinking that hordes of young returned missionaries will fall away within five years.

And so go the dismal prognostications. The numbers will drop back down. Or they'll come home early. Or they'll apostatize. Or the ones who don't go will be permanently scarred. 

All propaganda and talking points for the dark side. 

Is that what it is? Sometimes it feels like I need  urim and thumim to discuss things with him.

Still doesn't seem relevant 

[CV75]

12 hours ago, CV75 said:

Oh yes I miscalculated. What about late 2012, per the article -- 27 months or less?

I still think we can make the case for several years there, too. And 2012 was a leap year, so we can surmise that it really overlapped two solar years, and possibly three if observed from one of the outer planets of the solar system, or standing on a comet in an hyperbolic orbit. So, yes, I can see can be talking up to five years,perhaps even longer, if ever! The science proves it:

Furthermore, the tax year 2014 allowed transactions in to April 2015, so there's a sixth year, and since the world was supposed to end 12/21/2012 the rest of 2012 was a new year, making a seventh year! So the article must be on-the-spot.

But I think that, had the article used hyperbole to express the rise of the number of missionaries, it would have framed the anticipated leveling out as a precipitous decline (failure).

[salgare]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

He's using cancer and death to metaphorically underscore his wishful thinking that hordes of young returned missionaries will fall away within five years.

And so go the dismal prognostications. The numbers will drop back down. Or they'll come home early. Or they'll apostatize. Or the ones who don't go will be permanently scarred. 

All propaganda and talking points for the dark side. 

You are wrong about the wishful thinking.  I actually find it very painful to contemplate, especially knowing I currently have six grandchildren being indoctrinated to this end.  

As for the dark side, please address my question about the Church's plans in regards to those that fail their expectations commands.  The lifetime scars inflected truly define which is the dark side.

 

[salgare]

6 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

Is that what it is? Sometimes it feels like I need  urim and thumim to discuss things with him.

Still doesn't seem relevant 

I noted that: "Doubt, readily available data and bad experiences are the cancer."  Of course the death is the spiritual death promised them by the Church as a consequence of any failures.

And of course it's not relevant to the Church and mindless followers who also consider these individuals to have been weak, over come by Satan, becoming dark, and spiritually dead.  Throw away, with no plan or desire to help these individuals.

Very sad, very immoral, and like cancer no real cure in sight.

Edited January 24, 2016 by salgare

[Russell C McGregor]

30 minutes ago, salgare said:

I noted that: "Doubt, readily available data and bad experiences are the cancer."  Of course the death is the spiritual death promised them by the Church as a consequence of any failures.

CFR as to the "spiritual death promised them by the Church as a consequence of any failures."

30 minutes ago, salgare said:

And of course it's not relevant to the Church and mindless followers

What "mindless followers" are those?

"Sheeple," anyone?

Are "mindless followers" really worse than mindless bigots?

30 minutes ago, salgare said:

And of course it's not relevant to the Church and mindless followers who also consider these individuals to have been weak, over come by Satan, becoming dark, and spiritually dead.  Throw away, with no plan or desire to help these individuals.

You clearly belong to a different Church than I do.

30 minutes ago, salgare said:

Very sad, very immoral, and like cancer no real cure in sight.

"Immoral?"

Pot, meet kettle.

Do you really think it is "moral" to argue malicious stereotypes?

 

 

[salgare]

I see you have avoided my question ... what is the plan for those whom are hurt by this?

[Russell C McGregor]

1 minute ago, salgare said:

I see you have avoided my question ... what is the plan for those whom are hurt by this?

There are no question marks in the post to which I was replying. It is all overwrought declamation.

And there is a CFR before you.

 

[salgare]

I recant my statement of being of any statement other than my opinion.

Now, the whole point of all my posts in this thread is to address the efforts of the Church to pump up the millennial young men/women to be an elite, prepared before the foundations, 11th hour force called of God to go forth, against the grain of an evil world and bring those ready for the Gospel to baptism in the Church (to the tune of all possible member youth to hit the 100k in 3 more years).

Scott and others have expressed their excitement in these events and I'm simply pointing out there is also a lot of causalities among the current 75k and whatever numbers might be maintained over time.  I'm suggesting that its an immoral organization that has no plan for these individuals.

Perhaps you can address this?