25 Years And Strength

[stemelbow]

I do agree the Church is stronger than it was 25 years ago, in many ways.

But, I think there is one way in which the Church is having a hard time.

25 years ago (1989) there were 39,739 full time missionaries (give or take). We had well over 300,000 convert baptisms.

This past year (2014) there were 85,000 full time missionaries. More than twice as many missionaries, and yet we had only 297,000 convert baptisms.

This missionary effort is twice as inefficient as it used to be. What has changed?

Preach My Gospel

Raising the bar

Age change

Are these all oopsies? Should we learn from history and change our practices back to what they once were?

Or Have we arrived at a time where we need to rethink our missionary strategy?

Or edited to add:

Is this plateauing expected?

Are we far more interested in getting missionaries on missions then gettings convert baptisms (considering poor retention rates)?

Edited April 7, 2015 by stemelbow

[Calm]

World culture?

 

We could point to the mass conversions that occurred at the beginning of the Church as so much more efficient than what is happening today, but there were also missionaries at the time that were unsuccessful.  It appears that it has as much to do with where and who are being taught as the missionaries themselves.

[ksfisher]

Or conversely,  if the church hadn't introduced Preach My Gospel, raised the bar for missionary service, and lowered the age for missionaries (although this is such a recent change I'm not sure if it should count), how many fewer than the 279,000 convert baptisms would we have had?   

Edited April 7, 2015 by ksfisher

[stemelbow]

World culture?

 

We could point to the mass conversions that occurred at the beginning of the Church as so much more efficient than what is happening today, but there were also missionaries at the time that were unsuccessful.  It appears that it has as much to do with where and who are being taught as the missionaries themselves.

your last line is very inte3resting. It seems the surge has packed western world missions, which were already pretty low producing in terms of converts. Why did that happen? Why not pack Africa, India and other places? It seems our best bet in getting more converts is in these other parts of the world, parts we've largely ignored for the bulk of our history.

[stemelbow]

Or conversely,  if the church hadn't introduced Preach My Gospel, raised the bar for missionary service, and lowered the age for missionaries (although this is such a recent change I'm not sure if it should count), how many fewer than the 279,000 convert baptisms would we have had?

I'm guessing we would have had more not fewer. But we're all just guessing now. What do we need to do to address this apparent problem?

[Gray]

I do agree the Church is stronger than it was 25 years ago, in many ways.

But, I think there is one way in which the Church is having a hard time.

25 years ago (1989) there were 39,739 full time missionaries (give or take). We had well over 300,000 convert baptisms.

This past year (2014) there were 85,000 full time missionaries. More than twice as many missionaries, and yet we had only 279,000 convert baptisms.

This missionary effort is twice as inefficient as it used to be. What has changed?

Preach My Gospel

Raising the bar

Age change

Are these all oopsies? Should we learn from history and change our practices back to what they once were?

Or Have we arrived at a time where we need to rethink our missionary strategy?

Or edited to add:

Is this plateauing expected?

Are we far more interested in getting missionaries on missions then gettings convert baptisms (considering poor retention rates)?

 

I hope what has happened is reformation in the missionary program. In my mission we had thousands of names of people who had been quickly dunked in the 1980s and 1990s and never came back. Soccer baptisms, they were called. Pressure for numbers resulted in a lot of non-conversion baptisms. Some Elders even filled out forms from names off of tomb stones. It was pretty common to pressure young kids to get baptized, with zero effort on conversion/retention. 

[Mystery Meat]

Are we far more interested in getting missionaries on missions then gettings convert baptisms (considering poor retention rates)?

 

I think the answer to this question is its both. I think the Church could get as many baptisms through more robust member missionary work initiatives in certain areas. But I think missionary services provides dividends to the individual and church that would be irreplaceable. 

[Jeanne]

I believe that the man reason s because the missonaries today are facng people who know a little more or have heard a little more about the LDS Faith. Mormons are on sitcoms, they are on Broadway..and that leads to questions on numerous websites.  As a rule, sometimes more knowledge or diverse knowledge makes people very skeptical and with a lot more questions to ask.

[phaedrus ut]

Congregational growth to me is the most accurate measure of the active membership of the church.  The average number of members per congregation was 393 in the 1980s, 416 in the 1990s, 460 in the 2000s, and 497 in the early 2010s and was at 516 members per unit in 2014.  The 2014 Statistical report says 413,212 members were added from convert baptisms and increase of children on record. With the current statistic of  518 members per unit that should have added 798 congregations but they only added 368. 

 

 

Phaedrus

[JLHPROF]

 Should we learn from history and change our practices back to what they once were?

 

Oh, you know the Church never does that...any changes are always further light and knowledge based right? 

We're only capable of moving forward.

[Scott Lloyd]

I made this point on the other thread, but a greater resistance among the world at large to the gospel truth is not necessarily an indication that the Church itself is weakening.

 

The most that can be said is that the Church is up against challenges of a sort that haven't been faced before.

[stemelbow]

Congregational growth to me is the most accurate measure of the active membership of the church.  The average number of members per congregation was 393 in the 1980s, 416 in the 1990s, 460 in the 2000s, and 497 in the early 2010s and was at 516 members per unit in 2014.  The 2014 Statistical report says 413,212 members were added from convert baptisms and increase of children on record. With the current statistic of  518 members per unit that should have added 798 congregations but they only added 368. 

 

 

Phaedrus

Not sure if you did, but you have to factor in deceased and those who leave.

2013 Membership was 15,082,028

2014 15,372,337

Difference is 290,309

Subtract 290,309 from 413,212

Will give you the number of people who either died or had names removed - 122,903

We had more deaths and people leaving then we had new children added to the records. That's not good for a Church that's been growing for years.

Edited April 7, 2015 by stemelbow

[JLHPROF]

Is this plateauing expected?

Are we far more interested in getting missionaries on missions then gettings convert baptisms (considering poor retention rates)?

 

Plateauing in our day and age SHOULD be expected.  For the most part the days where the average person who might be interested in the Church but had never heard of it are gone.  If someone wants to know about the LDS Church, they google it for better or for worse.

 

In my opinion we need to examine why member retention is dropping (not all that drastically, but it seems to be) and what we can do about it.  Is the answer to water down the gospel to make it more palatable?  Is the answer to stick to our guns with no room for questioning?  Is the answer to stand firm in the gospel exactly as it is and do our best to help those with questions?  I think most would agree that the latter is the only real option available, regardless of results.

[ALarson]

I believe that very few people are going to join a church that requires a life change (for some more than others), a large commitment of their time, and 10% of their income without at least doing a google search for information about that church.  Unfortunately there is a lot of negative information about the church online.  

 

The church is doing well in countries where this information is not so readily available for the people.  At least, that's my impression.

 

I cannot remember the last time we had an entire family baptized into the church in our area.  But I do remember this happening quite often when I was growing up or even 20 years ago.  However, I do believe this is still happening in many other countries.

[stemelbow]

I made this point on the other thread, but a greater resistance among the world at large to the gospel truth is not necessarily an indication that the Church itself is weakening.

 

The most that can be said is that the Church is up against challenges of a sort that haven't been faced before.

We ought to realize that means we need to adapt our methods to help the world, it seems to me.

[stemelbow]

I hope what has happened is reformation in the missionary program. In my mission we had thousands of names of people who had been quickly dunked in the 1980s and 1990s and never came back. Soccer baptisms, they were called. Pressure for numbers resulted in a lot of non-conversion baptisms. Some Elders even filled out forms from names off of tomb stones. It was pretty common to pressure young kids to get baptized, with zero effort on conversion/retention.

Could be a huge factor. Missionaries used to just pad our numbers for funsies. I don't think missionaries can do that as much anymore.

We had some of what you describe on our mission.

[Calm]

your last line is very inte3resting. It seems the surge has packed western world missions, which were already pretty low producing in terms of converts. Why did that happen? Why not pack Africa, India and other places? It seems our best bet in getting more converts is in these other parts of the world, parts we've largely ignored for the bulk of our history.

I assume it is because the infrastructure to support the additional missionaries will take time to develope and they didn't want to put it into place if it was going to drop immediately.  Letting the new age go for several years to see if the numbers are sustained and then putting in place infrastructure in other parts of the world where the LDS presence is much less (and thus harder to get the infrastructure in place) seems like it would be wisdom (if that was the reasoning, I have no clue besides that is what I would do).

[stemelbow]

Plateauing in our day and age SHOULD be expected.  For the most part the days where the average person who might be interested in the Church but had never heard of it are gone.  If someone wants to know about the LDS Church, they google it for better or for worse.

 

In my opinion we need to examine why member retention is dropping (not all that drastically, but it seems to be) and what we can do about it.  Is the answer to water down the gospel to make it more palatable?  Is the answer to stick to our guns with no room for questioning?  Is the answer to stand firm in the gospel exactly as it is and do our best to help those with questions?  I think most would agree that the latter is the only real option available, regardless of results.

I left on my mission in 95. Didn't really know what the internet was. Soon most houses we knocked on had the internet. We'd greet them nicely set up a time to come back and when we did, they'd have printouts, questions, and angry faces. This internets been pretty available for many years, yet it's only now we have the lowest growth for 70 years. It seems to be more than a factor of the internet and the times. It seems we need to be able to adapt, not necessarily in teaching, but in approach. Is our missionary program doing the most for the Church and for the missionaries? Not so sure. We ought to reconsider what we're doing.

[stemelbow]

I assume it is because the infrastructure to support the additional missionaries will take time to develope and they didn't want to put it into place if it was going to drop immediately.  Letting the new age go for several years to see if the numbers are sustained and then putting in place infrastructure in other parts of the world where the LDS presence is much less (and thus harder to get the infrastructure in place) seems like it would be wisdom (if that was the reasoning, I have no clue besides that is what I would do).

It might be better for the kids if we just put them in these poor infrastructure places.

[Maestrophil]

Interesting question regarding the strength of the church.

 

Some of my thoughts - There seems to be a huge rise in the "new atheist" movement" in the past decade.  I would imagine all religions are feeling a decline in membership due to the popularity and "celebrity" endorsers of this philosophy that all religion is inherently man-made, controlling and bad for humans. The internet being a vast accelerator of this philosophy spreading.

 

Also, as a YM president and father, I notice our youth seem to be struggling with this as well as other philosophies including legalized pot, gender roles and gay marriage.  Perhaps part of increasing numbers of missionaries at younger ages is an attempt (perhaps inspired?) to build up our current youth as much or more than growing new converts.  A kind of righting of the ship before taking on new passengers.

 

I do know as a lay member, I definitely feel and observe a lot more people getting out of the church than I do getting in

[ALarson]

I have wondered if service missions would be more effective in attracting converts?  I know that the missionaries perform service now, but what if their missions were devoted to this especially in certain parts of the world?

[stemelbow]

I have wondered if service missions would be more effective in attracting converts?  I know that the missionaries perform service now, but what if their missions were devoted to this especially in certain parts of the world?

Agreed. So much so. We might get more converts and we might gain more for the kids going on missions.

[Avatar4321]

Can I ask something, what are you personally doing to share the gospel?

[rodheadlee]

I believe that very few people are going to join a church that requires a life change (for some more than others), a large commitment of their time, and 10% of their income without at least doing a google search for information about that church.  Unfortunately there is a lot of negative information about the church online.  

 

The church is doing well in countries where this information is not so readily available for the people.  At least, that's my impression.

 

I cannot remember the last time we had an entire family baptized into the church in our area.  But I do remember this happening quite often when I was growing up or even 20 years ago.  However, I do believe this is still happening in many other countries.

I'm sorry but google is available in 3rd world countries, much cheaper than the US, so is the equipment needed to use it. I paid 15$ a month in El Salvador for the same gigabytes i pay 50$ a month for in the US.

[Scott Lloyd]

I have wondered if service missions would be more effective in attracting converts?  I know that the missionaries perform service now, but what if their missions were devoted to this especially in certain parts of the world?

Service is good. But it should not be undertaken at the expense of direct preaching of the gospel, if that's what you are suggesting.